doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Springfield OH-Trump Won

“They’re Eating The Cats” Allowed Donald Trump To Win Springfield For the First Time

A notable moment of the election campaign was the cat-eating allegations surrounding Haitian migrants in the town of Springfield, OH.

The story circulated across social media the day before the only presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, with the former even mentioning it during the debate itself.

The townspeople of Springfield voted overwhelmingly for the President-elect in record numbers – making the first time in modern recorded history Springfield has voted for a Republican.

I suspect the Springfield voters didn't vote because Trump told them about the cats and dogs, or based on what the media told them about the cats and dogs, but because they knew firsthand what was going on in their town. Similar to the issue of the economy for the majority of other voters.

The geese?

I hadn't heard the cat eating allegations since I was a kid 65-70 years ago, but it wasn't illegals. We lived about 20 miles from Ashland KY and people still talked about a very popular Italian restaurant in the town that was shut down ten years before during WWII due to catching cats for it's spaghetti sauce. Apparently meat rationing was about to put them out of business. Instead, it was the health department. It took quite a while to bring their customers back in.

Why would Jimmy W like the initial post which is at complete odds with his other posts?

It seems the lambasting, embarrassing, exposure and humiliation Jimmy has affected him

[quote=Kolar Dickson]Why would Jimmy W like the initial post which is at complete odds with his other posts?






If you are looking for clear, rational, thinking from the doublegunshop.com group of leftists, you are going to be looking a long, long time. The usual suspects seem to be AWOL, perhaps a bit more butt-hurt than usual.
It is going to be a very pleasant four years.

Best,
Ted

It's fruitless to look for rationality where it does not exist.

“Hunting fishing” connection though my point is at the very end.
15 years ago my development in South Florida. Security gate guards were walking round the bend of the road that splits to a small section of the development with maybe a dozen homes on that side, right near a small lake with a fountain, two guards were scrutinizing something and the two were moving awfully slowly and cautiously looking around the bend. Sneaky style. I was traveling out towards the guard gate, slowed down and asked, “Whats up?” The older lady guard told me the new Viet inhabitants down that bend were regularly catching the Muscovy Ducks and taking them back to their homes, presumably to eat them, and neighbors/drivers were again calling complaints in. Talk about poisoned food.

Fishing on the saltwater piers nearby w my kids, I’d seen plenty of new Chinese, Vietnamese and Cuban folk here with illegal catches of fish undersized and species problematic and just leave them in plain sight on the dock flopping about gasping in the sun, without a care in the world, without a care who sees it, till they’re expired. Not comfortable to have my young’uns see that. (Then again, I’d take our catch and show them how to spear the knife tip into the brain for Insta-Kill!! Maybe worse.) No, theirs was not used for bait, they eventually pack up and put ‘em in Publix bags carried at the elbow.

Ive twice seen regular American folk (long living here) walk out of the bush in my hunting grounds with but only the legs/shank of pigs over their shoulders, throwing them in the cooler in the back of the truck on the dirt road and give me tips where they’ve seen pigs (usually said to be swimming across our many small ponds to cloisters of wood) - it’s illegal of course to quarter and do that to your catch in the fields without taking the whole to the exit station for weighing etc. (While not pigs, it’s illegal at least to shoot swimming deer in our WMA’s.)

The above examples maybe not the most sporting or legal way to go about collecting food, so I understand it emblatic of what leads to at least a little distaste. The aforementioned Cat-meat spaghetti takes the cake, though. Hopefully the newcomers figure it out and blend in with our mores and standards. Heck, my (foreign born) mom kept her arm pit hair until the mid-70’s when the chatting wifey neighbors finally openly criticized the practice in front of her. She got the point and joined that bandwagon.

Sorry, last piece: I had this posting in mind a couple hours ago when my brother called. My brother today shared our very elderly mother who lives states away from us, complained about the price of eggs/butter at Shop Rite when a friend of hers finally drove her there to buy some groceries. (Now, my brother lives a few hours away from her in the Mid-Atlantic and in a very large city that voted about 90%+ Democrat”, he’s single never married no kids and doing very well financially). I replied the obvious that unfortunately Mom’s seeing first-hand this complaint about inflation. He sensed the political charge (er, no, it was just meant as a comment about contemporary troubles) and defensive-aggressively replied, “Well, it’s a global inflation, it’s Covid and the Ukraine War!” I said, “ Well, whatever the arguable details to the economics, true or not, no matter whoever is responsible or not, mom complains about basic food pricing it’s affecting her, so maybe instead she ought go out back and collect up some ducks from the lake for their fat for butter and ...” That’s when he hung up on me.

Why must even a perception of political difference or perceived insult cause familial distress? Live and let live and just try the vote down the road. I knew it’d be a blowout and my brother is reallly sensitive right now. There’s a sickness out there. I wish it wasn’t here (I’m not particularly pointing to this thread being particularly pointy) where instead I’d like to enjoy getting away from all of it for awhile.

Families are weird things. Blood is a lot thicker than political differences, or, so I was taught. If my brother was a hard core leftist I’m sure there would be some sort of trouble, but, he isn’t, and I dodged that.

Sorry that you didn’t. If you could have a reasonable discussion with a democrat, there wouldn’t be any democrats. Sounds like your brother may have failed the reasonable part.

Take care of your mom. Assuming he will might not be the best for her.

Good luck.

Best,
Ted

You
My experience backs this up totally. Every time I try to have a real discussion with a liberal, they instantly stop me and begin lecturing me on "the truth". Years ago, my boss (an exceptional engineer that had worked all over the world), made some comment about gun control and the lack of same. I told him what I tell everyone when the subject comes up; that it is a personal freedom included in the Bill of Rights and has nothing to do with the National Guard etc. This was years ago before this was finally confirmed by SCOTA. Being a moderate, very knowledgeable, and very open minded, he thought for a minute and said simply "You're right. Why would it be buried in the Bill of Rights if it were a governmental right?" Any reasonable person should easily grasp this concept and understand.

The liberals simply will not accept the strict constructionist theory. It makes it too hard to bend the rules to to your whim. Don't like guns? Just outlaw them because you know you will never get enough states to ratify a new second amendment. Have a biased professor here and there write a paper to prove that in the revolutionary period people really didn't own or use guns. Lawyers will argue to the death about the importance of the tense of a verb or the punctuation of a sentence in a law, but the same people will subscribe to a doctrine that the Constitution was designed as a dynamic document, subject to interpretation of current events. This, the bedrock of our legal system which was adopted in a form designed to absolutely prevent such actions. The entire system is so clear it is genius as to long term stability of a republic. Let the states make laws that suit them; let national laws be agreed to by one body representing the popular feeling and a second group that represents the rights of the states; let the president be elected by a group representing the states after the citizens of those states decide among themselves; if you want to change any of this let 2/3's of the states agree and do it.

That's what the liberals can't seem to accept, and it is at the root of most of the current problems. Illegal immigration, abortion, splinter groups rights, gun control, defunding police etc. They want it both ways and have no ability to accept that the majority of the country doesn't agree.