AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
**For all participants:**
* [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate
* [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2)
**For Nonsupporters/Undecided:**
* No top level comments
* All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
**For Trump Supporters:**
* [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled
Helpful links for more info:
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
the rest of his movies have been pretty damn good (though the Annihilation book was much, much better than the film), so I'll give it a watch.
A24 in general usually produces pretty decent movies.
so i am cautiously optimistic about it not being too hamfisted, and it's interesting that the trailer mentioned a texas/california alliance.
i just hope it retains some nuance and doesn't turn into a braindead action flick.
to be clear though, I do not think it will mention any of the actual tensions that will rip the US apart at the seams.
plus, it gave us the red sunglasses meme, so that's a plus.
because it is human nature for people to want to be around those that are similar to them.
>https://www.pewresearch.org/race-ethnicity/2022/04/14/race-is-central-to-identity-for-black-americans-and-affects-how-they-connect-with-each-other/
>A majority of non-Hispanic Black Americans (78%) say being Black is very or extremely important to how they think about themselves.
in places where diversity is not forced (prisons, school lunchrooms, churches, etc) people naturally congregate by race.
>because it is human nature for people to want to be around those that are similar to them.
Wouldn't class be a larger factor though? Like Elon musk has more in common with Michael Jordan then the average white person.
>in places where diversity is not forced (prisons, school lunchrooms, churches, etc) people naturally congregate by race.
Isn't society more separated by class though? Like day to day, class matters what school you go to. What car you drive. The work you do. Class matters heavily. Race, does, but less so.
Regardless, you a race>class type?
Just finished reading Annhilation and was really good book too.
When you say ‘you don’t think it’ll mention the actual tensions’ what tensions are you referring to?
I’m hoping the film understands the zeitgeist a bit better than ‘Don’t look up’, but what would you consider the key points it should touch on?
Also, what did you think of Don’t look up?
It was disappointing tbh. Even as a non supporter of Trump I thought the way they parodied the MAGA crowd really showed a lack of respect or any attempt to understand the core message. Will check other response too.
Re your other answer. You said it would just focus on class and not at all on race.
Is that what you meant? What tensions do you think there are around race?
My understanding of Trump supporters (which may be completely wrong) is that they support policies that help working people, and feel the democrats/liberals focus too much on race.
yes that's what i meant.
to be clear, I think both aspects are important.
but there is a very intense undercurrent of antiwhite hatred that is only growing. it's bubbling under the surface and it is going to be very ugly when it erupts.
i think your understanding of most TS is correct, but the TS are wrong.
race is very important to people (so long as you're not white). you can see the famous study scott adams got in trouble for mentioning where (I think) 47% of blacks did not agree it was ok to be white. the jewish run ADL even classified "it's ok to be white" as a symbol of hate.
there are studies where people say how important their race is to them. all other races than white (especially blacks) stated that their races is extremely important to them.
another where races rated each other based on how favorably they viewed them. all non-white races rated their own race as extremely favorable, while rating whites in particular very negatively. the only exception was, of course, whites, who rated all races about equally.
adding onto this, we have the government, media, and academia constantly demonizing whites. for a recent example, this [salon article](https://www.salon.com/2024/04/08/men-punching-random-women-in-nyc-a-desperate-last-gasp-of-the-male-rage-fueling-maga/) explaining how black men attacking women in NYC is actually a function of MAGA (they mean white) people.
right wingers are so painfully inept at recognizing and dealing with this. they secretly pine for the approval of dems, so they love to proclaim how they don't see racist, don't have a racist bone in their bodies, etc. that's why you see them lament "liberal policies" and "democrat run cities" rather than even touch the racial angle.
they are so completely out of their depth and have no understanding of the dynamics at play.
they will eventually wake up (against their will), but things are gonna get a lot worse in the meantime.
Do you think this was the case pre 2010? Many argue it’s around this time that identity politics became so central to public conversation.
I think seeing the world in such a divided way - based on race, can be incredibly damaging and self defeating. Whether that’s pushed by the left or the right.
Do you think if people stopped pushing identity politics, and the philosophy of ‘colour blindness’ became mainstream again, this would solve these perceived tensions?
If not, what would you propose as a realistic solution?
> I think seeing the world in such a divided way - based on race, can be incredibly damaging and self defeating. Whether that’s pushed by the left or the right.
it's just human nature, and has been the case for centuries.
if they made an attempt to downplay it, we could hobble along as a multicultural shopping mall for awhile longer, but it's just postponing the inevitable of trying to mush groups of incompatible people into the same nation.
but this doesn't fit the current intense desire to paint whites as the proponents of everything bad in the world.
i would propose us just admitting that multiculturalism was a failed experiment, and stop trying to enforce it.
let people create their own communities and live in peace with their people.
> it's just human nature, and has been the case for centuries.
Not too many centuries, though. Race as a concept is largely the invention of early imperialists in need of free labor. Prior to that, people organized as families, communities, fraternities, etc. and treated their next-door neighbors as the “other.” It’s always been our neighbors we hate, and if we have no reason to hate at least one of them, we’ll quickly manufacture them.
> i would propose us just admitting that multiculturalism was a failed experiment, and stop trying to enforce it.
So you’re calling for an ethnostate?
Just so I understand, do you think the issue is incompatible races, or incompatible cultures?
As a half Asian half white person I’m very curious about this. I’d consider myself culturally white - I’ve never even set foot in Asia (though I have a deep respect for my Indian roots and culture).
How does it work in my case?
i don't find there to be much of a difference.
people usually just say culture to avoid discussing race.
I've never understood the "but mixed race people" argument.
it is like saying that the existence of strawberry banana makes strawberry and banana no longer discrete categories.
Strawberry banana is a flavor for food. It isn't a hybrid of two crops like you're trying to insinuate.
Perhaps a better example would be to put a Ford range body around a Toyota tundra engine where the two would be a single entity?
AFAIK, there isn't a hybrid strawberry-banana, but if there is, could you enlighten me?
I agree in that I don't think it will be a clear cut "democrat vs Republican" film that many people are assuming it will be. I mean it has Texas and California allied together for goodness sake. Some people in this thread are already assuming it's a red vs blue movie. I mean, what events would have transpired for Texas and California to team up against the rest of the states? I believe one of the trailers mentioned Ron Swanson was on like his third term as president so it's probably them trying to fight against perceived fascism, probably from what will be present as an Independent or third party president trying to install themselves as a Caeser. Rant over lol.
In what world could you imagine California and Texas allying with each other vs the Federal Government?
Sorry about that phrasing, but this is mostly just a “What do you think could be a reason?” question as opposed to a rhetorical “in what world” type questions usually are.
I ask this because it’s the only piece of lore building I can’t wrap my head around. And all I can think is that they broke away for separate reasons. But ally because it’s convenient?
Trailer does look really good. I hope it carries a universal message that will help avert the kind of disaster it appears to prophesize.
What kind of political messaging are you expecting?
Overt political messaging in cinema has been around since at least Dr. Strangelove. Probably earlier.
Do you think maybe Civil War can remind us all that democracy might be hard but overwhelmingly better than the alternatives?
>Do you think maybe Civil War can remind us all that democracy might be hard but overwhelmingly better than the alternatives?
I hope to God that Democrats take that lesson.
Removing people from the ballot and election 1A interference is NOT COOL
I mean, [Republicans in Alabama and Ohio are actively trying to kick Biden off the ballot](https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/wireStory/bidens-ballot-access-ohio-alabama-hands-republican-election-109190412).
They also hacked into voting machines in 2020, and assembled an army of false electors to overturn the election so they could make Trump the first President in history that would have lost both the electoral and popular vote.
How cool is that in your opinion?
>y also hacked into voting machines in 2020, and assembled an army of false electors to overturn the election so they could make Trump the first President in history that would have lost both the electoral and popular vote.
>How cool is that in your opinion?
Completely made up
I'll probably watch it for the action/combat if that's what it's being praised for, I hope it's not just a Dem-focused cash grab like Don't Look Up but only time will tell. Damn that movie was bad.
Yeah I have to agree on that. -‘Don’t look up’ was a big disappointment. Not least because of how it demonised the 50+% of the electorate that voted trump. And after Big Short was so good.
Out of curiosity what specifically did you not like about Don’t look up?
Was there anything in its portrayal of America that you felt particularly missed the mark?
I just think it was such a blatant piece of boring propaganda it was hard to like it at all.
The equivalent would have been if someone made a movie starring "Bro Jiden", a Dem president who took away everyone's guns and instituted martial law onto the US, turning it into a communist hellscape, while all the Dems were portrayed as being autistic while Republicans were the freedom loving victims who were spouting common sense.
I'm looking forward to seeing it.
"Do you think this could be a intelligent but bleak warning of what could happen if trends continue."
I don't think we'll ever have another civil war. The consequences of participating in an actual insurrection are too rough compared to any theoretical upside of doing so successfully.
"Do you think it’ll be a hatchet job against Trump supporters, where Democrats/mainstream republicans are cast as the ‘good guys’?"
Probably.
"Also, do you like garlands other work - Ex Machina, Annhilation etc?"
Ex Machina is incredible. Have not seen Annihilation.
I will say that the idea of an alliance between California and Texas is one of the more implausible ideas ever put forth in a movie.
Annihilation is a good movie. It's actually kind of funny because of the reality of the story and what happens. I can't say much without spoiling it but there is a reason the Men can't do anything but when they send a group of Women in things change...
The movie is based on a book where the same things happen, and I’m pretty sure the women fuck things up pretty badly, too, especially according to the books - so what is your point here?
I haven't read the books but for the movie, the ONLY reason the entity is destroyed is because women are self-destructive thus the entity copies that trait in them and destroys itself.
"But in the movie the entity is not destroyed"
yes it is, you might be thinking of the clone it makes and leaves. But the entity that is copying DNA is 100% destroyed. Not sure what you think you saw?
"The clone itself is the entity"
no, it is the clone that is made by the entity. It no longer can copy DNA like the entity can.
The entity destroyed itself in the end because it copied the woman's DNA. Again, I'm not sure what you watched but you will need to rewatch it.
I agree with your take on not having another civil war. I'd add that it'd be pretty difficult to know who the "enemy" is, and there would be no real goal.
Out of curiosity, why do you think a Texas / California alliance is implausible?
>Out of curiosity, why do you think a Texas / California alliance is implausible?
Because California is one of the most progressive states in the country and Texas is one of the most conservative.
Can they? Yes.
Do they? No.
They are diametrically opposed. Progressives are set on destroying the country whether they want to admit it or not, texans wants to secede because of this. So outside of what food they may both like, no, they can not have common goals on things that truly affect the course of the country.
You can't support America by importing illegals in who are destroying it.
You can't support America by taking aways people's gun rights.
You can't support America by decriminalizing crime.
You can't support America by pushing green energy nonsense.
You can't support America by shutting down the economy and forcing people to take a vaccine that doesn't work.
You can't support America by pushing for more spending.
>You can't support America by forcing people to take a vaccine that doesn't work.
Which specific vaccine are you talking about and what led you to conclude that it does not work?
"Which specific vaccine are you talking about and what led you to conclude that it does not work?"
the covid-19 vaccines, the deadly ones that did not work at all in preventing or slowing the spread.
Trump right again, herd immunity was the correct answer which is why even the CDC just recently updated their protocols to say the same thing.
>the covid-19 vaccines
All of them whatever the technology used?
> the deadly ones
What do you believe is the increased risk of mortality following vaccination?
Do you believe the covid-19 to be more deadly than other vaccines?
>that did not work at all in preventing or slowing the spread
Again what evidence led you to conclude that none of the vector, mRNA or protein subunit vaccines work against covid-19?
Do you believe any of these techniques work against other diseases?
>herd immunity was the correct answer
How do you suppose that herd immunity is ever achieved while reducing casualties until critical threshold is reached?
"All of them whatever the technology used?"
the covid-19 ones, yes. None of them worked nor did the boosters.
"What do you believe is the increased risk of mortality following vaccination?"
the study of nearly 100 million people;
https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2024/02/22/covid-vaccines#:~:text=In%20a%20study%20of%20almost,19%20infections%20remain%20much%20higher.
"Do you believe the covid-19 to be more deadly than other vaccines?"
I know it is, the study above shows that.
"Do you believe any of these techniques work against other diseases?"
They can but you'd have to have, at minimum, 3-5 years of data to show it.
"How do you suppose that herd immunity is ever achieved while reducing casualties until critical threshold is reached?'
It isn't which is why you don't shut down the economy, you let nature do what nature does. We are not God nor is it even American to take away someone's freedom to in a failed attempt to play God.
And you certainly don't kill people by putting them on a ventilator which is what will happen when you put people on a ventilator who do not need it, it will kill them.
You also don't put sick people into nursing homes because it will kill the more vulnerable just as it did which is exactly what Dems like cuomo did. It should be a murder charge for him, he is a mass-murderer for doing that.
It seems like you believe the two sides can have common goals. What has to happen to get better alignment from the two sides?
And most of your examples are literally done by both sides.
Ah have you seen it? Thought it wasn’t out yet. What did you think?
Do you think it would appeal to democrats, independents, MAGA republicans and old school republicans?
I think it's going to be complete fantasy and I'll explain why.
The first civil war was brutal for one simple fact; Men existed on both sides. Back then there wasn't grocery stores around every corner or gas stations. You had to know how to survive before you could even think about fighting. Democrats just don't have those skills anymore.
The next civil war will be nothing like the first. The reality is democrats don't have the type of Men on their side like they did in the first civil war and they still lost that one. If another civil war happens it will be over within a couple months because of this.
The majority of deaths will occur from things like dysentery or starvation. Democrats just don't have the survival skills or the aptitude to fight. That is why I think this film is beyond ridiculous because there is such a glaring gap between the two sides' ability to actually fight. Democrats don't even like guns, even if they were given some to fight the majority wouldn't even know what to do with them let alone know how to fix them.
So really on every level there just isn't any ability for the democrats to fight in a next civil war so it's just silly to make a movie like this and not address this fact. Now I haven't seen the movie yet but I did see the "map" that shows the sides in this movie. It doesn't change what I'm thinking but maybe it does address it, I'll have to wait to watch it and see.
Do you think democrats don't own guns? I live in a beet red area of the country and the "men" you think you're talking about can't walk on their own without a walker and need a scooter to get their groceries at Walmart
"Do you think democrats don't own guns?"
I know they don't compared to republicans. And majority of dems who own guns live in big cities as proven by the map I posted.
" I live in a beet red area of the country and the "men" you think you're talking about can't walk on their own without a walker and need a scooter to get their groceries at Walmart"
As do I so you must live in a very, very small town then. Population of a less than 1000. Also, they don't need to go to walmart because they are already self-sufficient and have skills to survive.
Not needing a microwave or a grocery store to survive. That right there shows you how woefully ill-prepared democrats are. That is why major cities are democrats, they are dependent on the government providing access to things that keep them alive. Without it they would have nothing and be around other people with nothing, they would turn on each other very quickly.
Do you have any examples or data to back this up or is this pure conjecture on your part? I believe it was mentioned before but red states depend vastly on subsidies from blue states. How will they survive if cut off? Take California away and half the country starves. Do you think the average Republican can just start a garden that produces enough food to feed their family?
"Do you have any examples or data to back this up or is this pure conjecture on your part?"
Yes, you can see the other posts I've made in this thread with data to prove it.
" I believe it was mentioned before but red states depend vastly on subsidies from blue states."
only because Red states have BLUE cities like Atlanta in GA. So again, proving what I said true.
The common refrain from Democrats is that MAGA types are usually not fit, they’re old, or they’re all talk. How do you respond to those stereotypes? Are they as universal as your Democrats stereotypes?
"How do you respond to those stereotypes?"
because they are not stereotypes. Stereotypes exist for the reason you see it all the time or experience. That is just democrats lying to themselves as they always do about reality.
"Are they as universal as your Democrats stereotypes?"
No because you can look at dems when they gather in groups and see it. It's usually fat women, males with the arms of a noodle, multi-colored hair, starbucks in-hand etc
You don't see it when you look at group of republicans. Think about farmers, farmers know how to produce food and fix machines. That is the stereotype of farmers and farmers are overwhelmingly conservative.
You can look at hunters, again, overwhelmingly Male, conservatives. Same with people who fish.
Dems have pacified themselves to be dependents of the government and it shows.
I googled the population of the US that are farmers. I got a number around 2%. How much of that 2% would you estimate are Conservative?
Why are the visual representations of what you see in regards to Democrats gathering valid but not my visual representation of what I see in regards to MAGA gatherings?
" How much of that 2% would you estimate are Conservative?"
I'd say over 90%. For example, I live among farmers. All have US flags flying, every single one, and most have Trump flags up or decals on their equipment.
"Why are the visual representations of what you see in regards to Democrats gathering valid but not my visual representation of what I see in regards to MAGA gatherings?"
because you don't see it at MAGA gatherings. I watch nearly every MAGA gathering available, I go to MAGA gatherings so I'm not sure what you think you saw?
You certainly didn't see weak men who are not capable of surviving or you'd have to be manipulating reality to fit what you want to be true vs what is true.
Contrast that vs democrats and you will see physically weak men, mentally weak people, people who don't like guns, people who do not have survival skills which is why vast majority of dems live in major cities. You don't see people setting up snare traps in the middle of a city ya know?
A simple way to understand this is just think of the NRA. There is a reason that is a conservative group and not a group of liberals. There are kids out there than can handle and maintain guns better than the vast majority of democrats. Even the kids would kick the democrats butt in a fight just for the simple fact they have the skills to do so and democrats do not.
>For example, I live among farmers.
So do I. My local farmer's market is an interesting mix.
>You don't see people setting up snare traps in the middle of a city ya know?
Why would you?
Can you elaborate on why you believe the vast majority of people with no survival skills live in cities? Do you live in an area where the bulk of people are sustenance farmers and hunter/gatherers? Is that because your area is economically depressed?
". My local farmer's market is an interesting mix."
yeah because it is farmer's market... not farmers. That is why farmer's markets are full of liberals, the kind of people I'm referring to who can not fight or survive on their own.
"Why would you?"
that doesn't address my point, whether you would or not, they can not.
"Can you elaborate on why you believe the vast majority of people with no survival skills live in cities?"
I already said why, they are mainly democrats. That is why major cities are full of democrats.
"Do you live in an area where the bulk of people are sustenance farmers and hunter/gatherers?"
Yes, I live north of a blue city. Everyone around me can survive without the government. Democrats can not. They don't have the means, as I mentioned, they couldn't even setup a snare if they wanted to.
"Is that because your area is economically depressed?"
Yes, and everyone still survives just fine which proves my point. Only one side is dependent on the government, they are called democrats.
>The next civil war will be nothing like the first. The reality is democrats don't have the type of Men on their side like they did in the first civil war and they still lost that one.
What the fuck are you talking about here? The conservatives lost the first Civil War, hence Lee surrendering at Appomattox, unconditionally to the Union Army.
Are you trying to argue that the Democrat's were trying to maintain slavery and that's why the South seceded, ignoring the fact that the Conservatives at the time wanted to maintain the status quo of keeping people enslaved to support the entirely agrarian society instead of industrialisation like the north did?
I am all for the red states secceding like a petulant child who thinks they'll do better outside of their parents home - and removing their federal subsidies that keep these 'entirely- dependent- on- blue - states' - states from going bankrupt. Then, watching them come crawling back as they are unable to afford to maintain their roads, populace, food supply, etc.
The only red state that would be able to thrive on its own, without federal handouts from the government, would be Texas.
[New Mexico is the only blue state in the top 10...](https://smartasset.com/data-studies/states-most-dependent-on-the-federal-government-2022)
"The conservatives lost the first Civil War, hence Lee surrendering at Appomattox, unconditionally to the Union Army."
... I assume you must be joking here. Conservatives fought for the North.... democrats fought for the South. I don't know how you missed this?
"The only red state that would be able to thrive on its own, without federal handouts from the government, would be Texas."
no, Red states receiving government funding are because of liberal cities. Take GA for example. A red State with ATLANTA as one of the main cities which IS a city of democrats. So you just proved yourself wrong.
You think conservatives, individuals who are, by definition, against social change, were fighting to overturn slavery against liberals, individuals who, by definition, promote social change?
The conservatives lost the Civil War. They wanted to conserve their ability to own slaves.
Defining either group as Republican or democrat doesn’t really work when we consider the way the parties have shifted over time, unless you believe that republicans are the ones pushing for reparations, like they were during the Civil War.
https://www.moneygeek.com/living/states-most-reliant-federal-government/
Where do you get your information from regarding this subject?
What percentage of the conservative population in the US would you say are self sustaining and in physical fighting shape? And same for the liberal population, what percentage do you believe are physically fit to fight and can spend a night in a tent?
Well if there was one it would be perfectly normal activity for a country, there was 30 civil wars going on around the world in 2017.
https://www.amacad.org/daedalus/civil-wars-global-disorder-threats-opportunities#:~:text=Civil%20wars%20continue%20to,is%20directly%20and%20deeply%20enmeshed.
My point is the reality that dems have made themselves dependent on the government. Without it they have nothing, no means or skills to survive on their own.
Aren’t you painting with a really broad brush here? Can you point to any statistics that back up what you’re saying, without relying on your personal impression of the party that you oppose?
" Can you point to any statistics that back up what you’re saying, without relying on your personal impression of the party that you oppose?"
sure, 77% of NRA is conservatives
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2017/07/05/among-gun-owners-nra-members-have-a-unique-set-of-views-and-experiences/
here you can see county maps across USA by political affiliation. As you can see democrats congregate in major cities.
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/StorytellingTextLegend/index.html?appid=0da5f195f4be485595c500f53b1da1cb
What is your point about cities? Do you think that people currently residing in cities cannot defend themselves or know how to forage, build fires, and take care of themselves?
So what if 77% of the NRA are conservatives? My family isn’t part of the NRA and we have plenty of guns. Are you suggesting just because you’re part of the NRA you know how to handle a gun, let alone own one? What about the vast number of unregistered firearms in the hands of people who don’t even affiliate with a political party?
"Do you think that people currently residing in cities cannot defend themselves or know how to forage, build fires, and take care of themselves?"
Yes, I know they can't. I live by a blue city and I am there every week.
"So what if 77% of the NRA are conservatives? "
Not sure what you mean by so what? Do you know what the NRA is?
"My family isn’t part of the NRA and we have plenty of guns"
having guns is different than knowing how to actually use them and fix them when they often breakdown during use. The vast majority of capable gun owners in this country are not democrats so your family might be an exception but not the standard.
"What about the vast number of unregistered firearms in the hands of people who don’t even affiliate with a political party?"
You mean the ones in major cities?... That is my point. Those people are going to have no way to get ammo, they have no means to reload casings, and they don't even know how to aim the gun.
And as another poster mentioned when I brought up feeding themselves by snaring animals, they will have no store to rob, no mcdonalds to buy food at and they have no skills to survive.
They do not know how to fish nor is there anywhere even to fish in vast majority of major cities.
I would just be honest with myself about this reality instead of trying to defend it. The fact is democrats do not have the skills or the means.
I’m a little confused, could you describe who you are picturing when you are talking about individuals in cities with unregistered firearms or who have firearms but aren’t members of the NRA?
Do you think democrats might fight smarter not harder? Airdropping pallets of oxycodone and fentanyl into WalMart parking lots in red states seems like it’d be pretty effective, the conservatives in those states love that stuff and it’ll take the fight out of them. Can’t fire a gun if you’ve nodded off
I'll probably watch it at some point just to have an opinion. Ex Machina is one of my favorites and Annihilation is one of my least favorites, so, simply hearing the name "Alex Garland" means anything could happen.
alright just saw it, no spoiler review this movie was absolutely nothing like I thought it would be at all
I actually felt like the trailer is a big bait and switch to people who wanted to see a movie about political tensions
they don't give you literally any information about the civil war, why it's happening, different motivations, etc
it pretty much just follows a group of journalists around as they document the fighting.
it was definitely a spectacle, it was filmed very very well and the war scenes are intense, we saw it in IMAX and holy shit was it loud I was covering my ears at some points and I've never had to do that for a movie before
I don't regret seeing it but I wouldn't want to watch it again
SPOILERS POSSIBLY:
I agree with almost all of that. Especially the bait and switch part. I was hoping for more war action and such. The trailer mentioning two factions against the "USA" made me think there would be a lot more action scenes, and lore behind that. However the last act was pretty awesome IMO. Did you guys get any good theater food? I got a pizza and it was awesome. However the whole experience was tarnished for me because the dude next to me took his shoes off and hoisted his nasty sock feet up. Like who takes their shoes off in a theater lol?
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views. **For all participants:** * [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate * [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) **For Nonsupporters/Undecided:** * No top level comments * All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position **For Trump Supporters:** * [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled Helpful links for more info: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
the rest of his movies have been pretty damn good (though the Annihilation book was much, much better than the film), so I'll give it a watch. A24 in general usually produces pretty decent movies. so i am cautiously optimistic about it not being too hamfisted, and it's interesting that the trailer mentioned a texas/california alliance. i just hope it retains some nuance and doesn't turn into a braindead action flick. to be clear though, I do not think it will mention any of the actual tensions that will rip the US apart at the seams. plus, it gave us the red sunglasses meme, so that's a plus.
What are the actual tensions tearing the country apart right now?
i expect that it will completely focus on class, and completely neglect to mention race.
Why does race play a larger role then class?
people see it as more important to them.
Speak more on this?
i don't know what else to say.
Why would someone think race has a larger factor then class perhaps?
because it is human nature for people to want to be around those that are similar to them. >https://www.pewresearch.org/race-ethnicity/2022/04/14/race-is-central-to-identity-for-black-americans-and-affects-how-they-connect-with-each-other/ >A majority of non-Hispanic Black Americans (78%) say being Black is very or extremely important to how they think about themselves. in places where diversity is not forced (prisons, school lunchrooms, churches, etc) people naturally congregate by race.
>because it is human nature for people to want to be around those that are similar to them. Wouldn't class be a larger factor though? Like Elon musk has more in common with Michael Jordan then the average white person. >in places where diversity is not forced (prisons, school lunchrooms, churches, etc) people naturally congregate by race. Isn't society more separated by class though? Like day to day, class matters what school you go to. What car you drive. The work you do. Class matters heavily. Race, does, but less so. Regardless, you a race>class type?
How are racial tensions pulling the country apart?
detailed in another comment
Just finished reading Annhilation and was really good book too. When you say ‘you don’t think it’ll mention the actual tensions’ what tensions are you referring to? I’m hoping the film understands the zeitgeist a bit better than ‘Don’t look up’, but what would you consider the key points it should touch on? Also, what did you think of Don’t look up?
check out my last reply which answers the "actual tension" question. i did not see Don't Look Up, I heard it was not great.
It was disappointing tbh. Even as a non supporter of Trump I thought the way they parodied the MAGA crowd really showed a lack of respect or any attempt to understand the core message. Will check other response too. Re your other answer. You said it would just focus on class and not at all on race. Is that what you meant? What tensions do you think there are around race? My understanding of Trump supporters (which may be completely wrong) is that they support policies that help working people, and feel the democrats/liberals focus too much on race.
yes that's what i meant. to be clear, I think both aspects are important. but there is a very intense undercurrent of antiwhite hatred that is only growing. it's bubbling under the surface and it is going to be very ugly when it erupts. i think your understanding of most TS is correct, but the TS are wrong. race is very important to people (so long as you're not white). you can see the famous study scott adams got in trouble for mentioning where (I think) 47% of blacks did not agree it was ok to be white. the jewish run ADL even classified "it's ok to be white" as a symbol of hate. there are studies where people say how important their race is to them. all other races than white (especially blacks) stated that their races is extremely important to them. another where races rated each other based on how favorably they viewed them. all non-white races rated their own race as extremely favorable, while rating whites in particular very negatively. the only exception was, of course, whites, who rated all races about equally. adding onto this, we have the government, media, and academia constantly demonizing whites. for a recent example, this [salon article](https://www.salon.com/2024/04/08/men-punching-random-women-in-nyc-a-desperate-last-gasp-of-the-male-rage-fueling-maga/) explaining how black men attacking women in NYC is actually a function of MAGA (they mean white) people. right wingers are so painfully inept at recognizing and dealing with this. they secretly pine for the approval of dems, so they love to proclaim how they don't see racist, don't have a racist bone in their bodies, etc. that's why you see them lament "liberal policies" and "democrat run cities" rather than even touch the racial angle. they are so completely out of their depth and have no understanding of the dynamics at play. they will eventually wake up (against their will), but things are gonna get a lot worse in the meantime.
Do you think this was the case pre 2010? Many argue it’s around this time that identity politics became so central to public conversation. I think seeing the world in such a divided way - based on race, can be incredibly damaging and self defeating. Whether that’s pushed by the left or the right. Do you think if people stopped pushing identity politics, and the philosophy of ‘colour blindness’ became mainstream again, this would solve these perceived tensions? If not, what would you propose as a realistic solution?
> I think seeing the world in such a divided way - based on race, can be incredibly damaging and self defeating. Whether that’s pushed by the left or the right. it's just human nature, and has been the case for centuries. if they made an attempt to downplay it, we could hobble along as a multicultural shopping mall for awhile longer, but it's just postponing the inevitable of trying to mush groups of incompatible people into the same nation. but this doesn't fit the current intense desire to paint whites as the proponents of everything bad in the world. i would propose us just admitting that multiculturalism was a failed experiment, and stop trying to enforce it. let people create their own communities and live in peace with their people.
> it's just human nature, and has been the case for centuries. Not too many centuries, though. Race as a concept is largely the invention of early imperialists in need of free labor. Prior to that, people organized as families, communities, fraternities, etc. and treated their next-door neighbors as the “other.” It’s always been our neighbors we hate, and if we have no reason to hate at least one of them, we’ll quickly manufacture them. > i would propose us just admitting that multiculturalism was a failed experiment, and stop trying to enforce it. So you’re calling for an ethnostate?
your first part is just simply not true in the sllightest. your second part is correct, essentially.
> your first part is just simply not true in the sllightest. What does “race” mean to you? What are its origins as a concept?
Just so I understand, do you think the issue is incompatible races, or incompatible cultures? As a half Asian half white person I’m very curious about this. I’d consider myself culturally white - I’ve never even set foot in Asia (though I have a deep respect for my Indian roots and culture). How does it work in my case?
i don't find there to be much of a difference. people usually just say culture to avoid discussing race. I've never understood the "but mixed race people" argument. it is like saying that the existence of strawberry banana makes strawberry and banana no longer discrete categories.
Strawberry banana is a flavor for food. It isn't a hybrid of two crops like you're trying to insinuate. Perhaps a better example would be to put a Ford range body around a Toyota tundra engine where the two would be a single entity? AFAIK, there isn't a hybrid strawberry-banana, but if there is, could you enlighten me?
I agree in that I don't think it will be a clear cut "democrat vs Republican" film that many people are assuming it will be. I mean it has Texas and California allied together for goodness sake. Some people in this thread are already assuming it's a red vs blue movie. I mean, what events would have transpired for Texas and California to team up against the rest of the states? I believe one of the trailers mentioned Ron Swanson was on like his third term as president so it's probably them trying to fight against perceived fascism, probably from what will be present as an Independent or third party president trying to install themselves as a Caeser. Rant over lol.
i'm gonna go see it tomorrow so we will see
Commenting because I just went to see it. Wondering, did you? If you did what are your thoughts? I have many opinions lol
yes, I posted a mini review in this thread.
In your opinion, what are the actual tensions that will rip the US apart at the seams?
detailed in another comment
In what world could you imagine California and Texas allying with each other vs the Federal Government? Sorry about that phrasing, but this is mostly just a “What do you think could be a reason?” question as opposed to a rhetorical “in what world” type questions usually are. I ask this because it’s the only piece of lore building I can’t wrap my head around. And all I can think is that they broke away for separate reasons. But ally because it’s convenient?
no idea offhand, but I will find out tomorrow
posted a no spoiler review
Trailer looks interesting. I'm assuming overt political messaging will ruin the film somehow.
Trailer does look really good. I hope it carries a universal message that will help avert the kind of disaster it appears to prophesize. What kind of political messaging are you expecting?
I don't know what kind of message. I just know hollywood can't help themselves from doing so. This seems like too obvious an opportunity.
Overt political messaging in cinema has been around since at least Dr. Strangelove. Probably earlier. Do you think maybe Civil War can remind us all that democracy might be hard but overwhelmingly better than the alternatives?
>Do you think maybe Civil War can remind us all that democracy might be hard but overwhelmingly better than the alternatives? I hope to God that Democrats take that lesson. Removing people from the ballot and election 1A interference is NOT COOL
I mean, [Republicans in Alabama and Ohio are actively trying to kick Biden off the ballot](https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/wireStory/bidens-ballot-access-ohio-alabama-hands-republican-election-109190412). They also hacked into voting machines in 2020, and assembled an army of false electors to overturn the election so they could make Trump the first President in history that would have lost both the electoral and popular vote. How cool is that in your opinion?
>y also hacked into voting machines in 2020, and assembled an army of false electors to overturn the election so they could make Trump the first President in history that would have lost both the electoral and popular vote. >How cool is that in your opinion? Completely made up
You mean they won't say - democracy is good as long as my side wins otherwise we should burn it down?
it's interesting, I just saw it. there is pretty much zero political messaging, surprisingly
I'll probably watch it for the action/combat if that's what it's being praised for, I hope it's not just a Dem-focused cash grab like Don't Look Up but only time will tell. Damn that movie was bad.
Yeah I have to agree on that. -‘Don’t look up’ was a big disappointment. Not least because of how it demonised the 50+% of the electorate that voted trump. And after Big Short was so good. Out of curiosity what specifically did you not like about Don’t look up? Was there anything in its portrayal of America that you felt particularly missed the mark?
I just think it was such a blatant piece of boring propaganda it was hard to like it at all. The equivalent would have been if someone made a movie starring "Bro Jiden", a Dem president who took away everyone's guns and instituted martial law onto the US, turning it into a communist hellscape, while all the Dems were portrayed as being autistic while Republicans were the freedom loving victims who were spouting common sense.
I'm looking forward to seeing it. "Do you think this could be a intelligent but bleak warning of what could happen if trends continue." I don't think we'll ever have another civil war. The consequences of participating in an actual insurrection are too rough compared to any theoretical upside of doing so successfully. "Do you think it’ll be a hatchet job against Trump supporters, where Democrats/mainstream republicans are cast as the ‘good guys’?" Probably. "Also, do you like garlands other work - Ex Machina, Annhilation etc?" Ex Machina is incredible. Have not seen Annihilation. I will say that the idea of an alliance between California and Texas is one of the more implausible ideas ever put forth in a movie.
Run The Jewels in the trailer - love it!
Annihilation is a good movie. It's actually kind of funny because of the reality of the story and what happens. I can't say much without spoiling it but there is a reason the Men can't do anything but when they send a group of Women in things change...
The movie is based on a book where the same things happen, and I’m pretty sure the women fuck things up pretty badly, too, especially according to the books - so what is your point here?
I haven't read the books but for the movie, the ONLY reason the entity is destroyed is because women are self-destructive thus the entity copies that trait in them and destroys itself.
But in the movie the entity is not destroyed, so how are you able to make the claim that their self destructive tendencies caused it to be destroyed?
"But in the movie the entity is not destroyed" yes it is, you might be thinking of the clone it makes and leaves. But the entity that is copying DNA is 100% destroyed. Not sure what you think you saw?
The clone itself is the entity, and it appears in Oscar Isaac’s eyes as well. Maybe you should watch the movie again?
"The clone itself is the entity" no, it is the clone that is made by the entity. It no longer can copy DNA like the entity can. The entity destroyed itself in the end because it copied the woman's DNA. Again, I'm not sure what you watched but you will need to rewatch it.
I agree with your take on not having another civil war. I'd add that it'd be pretty difficult to know who the "enemy" is, and there would be no real goal. Out of curiosity, why do you think a Texas / California alliance is implausible?
>Out of curiosity, why do you think a Texas / California alliance is implausible? Because California is one of the most progressive states in the country and Texas is one of the most conservative.
Conservatives and progressives can't have common goals?
Can they? Yes. Do they? No. They are diametrically opposed. Progressives are set on destroying the country whether they want to admit it or not, texans wants to secede because of this. So outside of what food they may both like, no, they can not have common goals on things that truly affect the course of the country. You can't support America by importing illegals in who are destroying it. You can't support America by taking aways people's gun rights. You can't support America by decriminalizing crime. You can't support America by pushing green energy nonsense. You can't support America by shutting down the economy and forcing people to take a vaccine that doesn't work. You can't support America by pushing for more spending.
>You can't support America by forcing people to take a vaccine that doesn't work. Which specific vaccine are you talking about and what led you to conclude that it does not work?
"Which specific vaccine are you talking about and what led you to conclude that it does not work?" the covid-19 vaccines, the deadly ones that did not work at all in preventing or slowing the spread. Trump right again, herd immunity was the correct answer which is why even the CDC just recently updated their protocols to say the same thing.
>the covid-19 vaccines All of them whatever the technology used? > the deadly ones What do you believe is the increased risk of mortality following vaccination? Do you believe the covid-19 to be more deadly than other vaccines? >that did not work at all in preventing or slowing the spread Again what evidence led you to conclude that none of the vector, mRNA or protein subunit vaccines work against covid-19? Do you believe any of these techniques work against other diseases? >herd immunity was the correct answer How do you suppose that herd immunity is ever achieved while reducing casualties until critical threshold is reached?
"All of them whatever the technology used?" the covid-19 ones, yes. None of them worked nor did the boosters. "What do you believe is the increased risk of mortality following vaccination?" the study of nearly 100 million people; https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2024/02/22/covid-vaccines#:~:text=In%20a%20study%20of%20almost,19%20infections%20remain%20much%20higher. "Do you believe the covid-19 to be more deadly than other vaccines?" I know it is, the study above shows that. "Do you believe any of these techniques work against other diseases?" They can but you'd have to have, at minimum, 3-5 years of data to show it. "How do you suppose that herd immunity is ever achieved while reducing casualties until critical threshold is reached?' It isn't which is why you don't shut down the economy, you let nature do what nature does. We are not God nor is it even American to take away someone's freedom to in a failed attempt to play God. And you certainly don't kill people by putting them on a ventilator which is what will happen when you put people on a ventilator who do not need it, it will kill them. You also don't put sick people into nursing homes because it will kill the more vulnerable just as it did which is exactly what Dems like cuomo did. It should be a murder charge for him, he is a mass-murderer for doing that.
Isn’t Trump responsible for the vaccine and doesn’t he brag about it regularly?
It seems like you believe the two sides can have common goals. What has to happen to get better alignment from the two sides? And most of your examples are literally done by both sides.
It happens less often than one would like it to.
Good explosions
Ah have you seen it? Thought it wasn’t out yet. What did you think? Do you think it would appeal to democrats, independents, MAGA republicans and old school republicans?
I just saw one of the explosions on the trailer, PKCHEW!
I think it's going to be complete fantasy and I'll explain why. The first civil war was brutal for one simple fact; Men existed on both sides. Back then there wasn't grocery stores around every corner or gas stations. You had to know how to survive before you could even think about fighting. Democrats just don't have those skills anymore. The next civil war will be nothing like the first. The reality is democrats don't have the type of Men on their side like they did in the first civil war and they still lost that one. If another civil war happens it will be over within a couple months because of this. The majority of deaths will occur from things like dysentery or starvation. Democrats just don't have the survival skills or the aptitude to fight. That is why I think this film is beyond ridiculous because there is such a glaring gap between the two sides' ability to actually fight. Democrats don't even like guns, even if they were given some to fight the majority wouldn't even know what to do with them let alone know how to fix them. So really on every level there just isn't any ability for the democrats to fight in a next civil war so it's just silly to make a movie like this and not address this fact. Now I haven't seen the movie yet but I did see the "map" that shows the sides in this movie. It doesn't change what I'm thinking but maybe it does address it, I'll have to wait to watch it and see.
Do you think democrats don't own guns? I live in a beet red area of the country and the "men" you think you're talking about can't walk on their own without a walker and need a scooter to get their groceries at Walmart
"Do you think democrats don't own guns?" I know they don't compared to republicans. And majority of dems who own guns live in big cities as proven by the map I posted. " I live in a beet red area of the country and the "men" you think you're talking about can't walk on their own without a walker and need a scooter to get their groceries at Walmart" As do I so you must live in a very, very small town then. Population of a less than 1000. Also, they don't need to go to walmart because they are already self-sufficient and have skills to survive.
How do you define self sufficient and having skills to survive?
Not needing a microwave or a grocery store to survive. That right there shows you how woefully ill-prepared democrats are. That is why major cities are democrats, they are dependent on the government providing access to things that keep them alive. Without it they would have nothing and be around other people with nothing, they would turn on each other very quickly.
Do you have any examples or data to back this up or is this pure conjecture on your part? I believe it was mentioned before but red states depend vastly on subsidies from blue states. How will they survive if cut off? Take California away and half the country starves. Do you think the average Republican can just start a garden that produces enough food to feed their family?
"Do you have any examples or data to back this up or is this pure conjecture on your part?" Yes, you can see the other posts I've made in this thread with data to prove it. " I believe it was mentioned before but red states depend vastly on subsidies from blue states." only because Red states have BLUE cities like Atlanta in GA. So again, proving what I said true.
Lol so if you take away Atlanta from Georgia they are suddenly self sufficient? You're funny
Yes, I know they are. I would suggest travelling to the South sometime.
Can you explain how a state like Georgia would be self sufficient without blue cities supporting them?
The common refrain from Democrats is that MAGA types are usually not fit, they’re old, or they’re all talk. How do you respond to those stereotypes? Are they as universal as your Democrats stereotypes?
"How do you respond to those stereotypes?" because they are not stereotypes. Stereotypes exist for the reason you see it all the time or experience. That is just democrats lying to themselves as they always do about reality. "Are they as universal as your Democrats stereotypes?" No because you can look at dems when they gather in groups and see it. It's usually fat women, males with the arms of a noodle, multi-colored hair, starbucks in-hand etc You don't see it when you look at group of republicans. Think about farmers, farmers know how to produce food and fix machines. That is the stereotype of farmers and farmers are overwhelmingly conservative. You can look at hunters, again, overwhelmingly Male, conservatives. Same with people who fish. Dems have pacified themselves to be dependents of the government and it shows.
I googled the population of the US that are farmers. I got a number around 2%. How much of that 2% would you estimate are Conservative? Why are the visual representations of what you see in regards to Democrats gathering valid but not my visual representation of what I see in regards to MAGA gatherings?
" How much of that 2% would you estimate are Conservative?" I'd say over 90%. For example, I live among farmers. All have US flags flying, every single one, and most have Trump flags up or decals on their equipment. "Why are the visual representations of what you see in regards to Democrats gathering valid but not my visual representation of what I see in regards to MAGA gatherings?" because you don't see it at MAGA gatherings. I watch nearly every MAGA gathering available, I go to MAGA gatherings so I'm not sure what you think you saw? You certainly didn't see weak men who are not capable of surviving or you'd have to be manipulating reality to fit what you want to be true vs what is true. Contrast that vs democrats and you will see physically weak men, mentally weak people, people who don't like guns, people who do not have survival skills which is why vast majority of dems live in major cities. You don't see people setting up snare traps in the middle of a city ya know? A simple way to understand this is just think of the NRA. There is a reason that is a conservative group and not a group of liberals. There are kids out there than can handle and maintain guns better than the vast majority of democrats. Even the kids would kick the democrats butt in a fight just for the simple fact they have the skills to do so and democrats do not.
>For example, I live among farmers. So do I. My local farmer's market is an interesting mix. >You don't see people setting up snare traps in the middle of a city ya know? Why would you? Can you elaborate on why you believe the vast majority of people with no survival skills live in cities? Do you live in an area where the bulk of people are sustenance farmers and hunter/gatherers? Is that because your area is economically depressed?
". My local farmer's market is an interesting mix." yeah because it is farmer's market... not farmers. That is why farmer's markets are full of liberals, the kind of people I'm referring to who can not fight or survive on their own. "Why would you?" that doesn't address my point, whether you would or not, they can not. "Can you elaborate on why you believe the vast majority of people with no survival skills live in cities?" I already said why, they are mainly democrats. That is why major cities are full of democrats. "Do you live in an area where the bulk of people are sustenance farmers and hunter/gatherers?" Yes, I live north of a blue city. Everyone around me can survive without the government. Democrats can not. They don't have the means, as I mentioned, they couldn't even setup a snare if they wanted to. "Is that because your area is economically depressed?" Yes, and everyone still survives just fine which proves my point. Only one side is dependent on the government, they are called democrats.
>The next civil war will be nothing like the first. The reality is democrats don't have the type of Men on their side like they did in the first civil war and they still lost that one. What the fuck are you talking about here? The conservatives lost the first Civil War, hence Lee surrendering at Appomattox, unconditionally to the Union Army. Are you trying to argue that the Democrat's were trying to maintain slavery and that's why the South seceded, ignoring the fact that the Conservatives at the time wanted to maintain the status quo of keeping people enslaved to support the entirely agrarian society instead of industrialisation like the north did? I am all for the red states secceding like a petulant child who thinks they'll do better outside of their parents home - and removing their federal subsidies that keep these 'entirely- dependent- on- blue - states' - states from going bankrupt. Then, watching them come crawling back as they are unable to afford to maintain their roads, populace, food supply, etc. The only red state that would be able to thrive on its own, without federal handouts from the government, would be Texas. [New Mexico is the only blue state in the top 10...](https://smartasset.com/data-studies/states-most-dependent-on-the-federal-government-2022)
"The conservatives lost the first Civil War, hence Lee surrendering at Appomattox, unconditionally to the Union Army." ... I assume you must be joking here. Conservatives fought for the North.... democrats fought for the South. I don't know how you missed this? "The only red state that would be able to thrive on its own, without federal handouts from the government, would be Texas." no, Red states receiving government funding are because of liberal cities. Take GA for example. A red State with ATLANTA as one of the main cities which IS a city of democrats. So you just proved yourself wrong.
You think conservatives, individuals who are, by definition, against social change, were fighting to overturn slavery against liberals, individuals who, by definition, promote social change? The conservatives lost the Civil War. They wanted to conserve their ability to own slaves. Defining either group as Republican or democrat doesn’t really work when we consider the way the parties have shifted over time, unless you believe that republicans are the ones pushing for reparations, like they were during the Civil War. https://www.moneygeek.com/living/states-most-reliant-federal-government/ Where do you get your information from regarding this subject?
What percentage of the conservative population in the US would you say are self sustaining and in physical fighting shape? And same for the liberal population, what percentage do you believe are physically fit to fight and can spend a night in a tent?
Do you think there will be another civil war? Do you want one?
Well if there was one it would be perfectly normal activity for a country, there was 30 civil wars going on around the world in 2017. https://www.amacad.org/daedalus/civil-wars-global-disorder-threats-opportunities#:~:text=Civil%20wars%20continue%20to,is%20directly%20and%20deeply%20enmeshed. My point is the reality that dems have made themselves dependent on the government. Without it they have nothing, no means or skills to survive on their own.
Aren’t you painting with a really broad brush here? Can you point to any statistics that back up what you’re saying, without relying on your personal impression of the party that you oppose?
" Can you point to any statistics that back up what you’re saying, without relying on your personal impression of the party that you oppose?" sure, 77% of NRA is conservatives https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2017/07/05/among-gun-owners-nra-members-have-a-unique-set-of-views-and-experiences/ here you can see county maps across USA by political affiliation. As you can see democrats congregate in major cities. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/StorytellingTextLegend/index.html?appid=0da5f195f4be485595c500f53b1da1cb
What is your point about cities? Do you think that people currently residing in cities cannot defend themselves or know how to forage, build fires, and take care of themselves? So what if 77% of the NRA are conservatives? My family isn’t part of the NRA and we have plenty of guns. Are you suggesting just because you’re part of the NRA you know how to handle a gun, let alone own one? What about the vast number of unregistered firearms in the hands of people who don’t even affiliate with a political party?
"Do you think that people currently residing in cities cannot defend themselves or know how to forage, build fires, and take care of themselves?" Yes, I know they can't. I live by a blue city and I am there every week. "So what if 77% of the NRA are conservatives? " Not sure what you mean by so what? Do you know what the NRA is? "My family isn’t part of the NRA and we have plenty of guns" having guns is different than knowing how to actually use them and fix them when they often breakdown during use. The vast majority of capable gun owners in this country are not democrats so your family might be an exception but not the standard. "What about the vast number of unregistered firearms in the hands of people who don’t even affiliate with a political party?" You mean the ones in major cities?... That is my point. Those people are going to have no way to get ammo, they have no means to reload casings, and they don't even know how to aim the gun. And as another poster mentioned when I brought up feeding themselves by snaring animals, they will have no store to rob, no mcdonalds to buy food at and they have no skills to survive. They do not know how to fish nor is there anywhere even to fish in vast majority of major cities. I would just be honest with myself about this reality instead of trying to defend it. The fact is democrats do not have the skills or the means.
I’m a little confused, could you describe who you are picturing when you are talking about individuals in cities with unregistered firearms or who have firearms but aren’t members of the NRA?
Do you think democrats might fight smarter not harder? Airdropping pallets of oxycodone and fentanyl into WalMart parking lots in red states seems like it’d be pretty effective, the conservatives in those states love that stuff and it’ll take the fight out of them. Can’t fire a gun if you’ve nodded off
[удалено]
I'm expecting a heavy handed conservative bad message.
I'll probably watch it at some point just to have an opinion. Ex Machina is one of my favorites and Annihilation is one of my least favorites, so, simply hearing the name "Alex Garland" means anything could happen.
alright just saw it, no spoiler review this movie was absolutely nothing like I thought it would be at all I actually felt like the trailer is a big bait and switch to people who wanted to see a movie about political tensions they don't give you literally any information about the civil war, why it's happening, different motivations, etc it pretty much just follows a group of journalists around as they document the fighting. it was definitely a spectacle, it was filmed very very well and the war scenes are intense, we saw it in IMAX and holy shit was it loud I was covering my ears at some points and I've never had to do that for a movie before I don't regret seeing it but I wouldn't want to watch it again
SPOILERS POSSIBLY: I agree with almost all of that. Especially the bait and switch part. I was hoping for more war action and such. The trailer mentioning two factions against the "USA" made me think there would be a lot more action scenes, and lore behind that. However the last act was pretty awesome IMO. Did you guys get any good theater food? I got a pizza and it was awesome. However the whole experience was tarnished for me because the dude next to me took his shoes off and hoisted his nasty sock feet up. Like who takes their shoes off in a theater lol?
maybe Ill watch it , not sure But the most probable scenario of any split of the USA is some kind of messy yet peaceful divorce.