Discussion»Statements»Rosie's Corner» Red represents anger jealousy hostility belligerence war. Blue doesn't. The why trumpicans are reds and nons are blues. Makes sense, true?
That's a darn great question Rev. I have no idea if there were colors or absence thereof early on. It just occurred to me that the current colors that represent the partisan political parties seem to be fitting the temperaments over-all of the two parties. Of course there are reds temperament-wise among the blues and also blues temperament-wise among the reds. But the super don panders to the reds. They show up at his rallies. They cheer him when he showers a local pol who was charged with CRIMINAL ASSAULT for bodyslamming a reporter with compliments and they also ALWAYS LOVE TO chant LOCK HER UP referring to Hilary or Elizabeth Warren or Maxine Waters or any woman who is on super don's hit list at the moment. I suppose super don could be blue but then whom would he pander to so he's stuck with the monster he created and has to keep feeding it and feeding it and feeding it anger and hate and fear and all of those are reds. Thank you for your reply and Happy Monday! :)
This post was edited by RosieG at October 22, 2018 11:30 AM MDT
The current terminology of "red states" and "blue states" came into use in the United States presidential election of 2000 on an episode of the Today show on October 30, 2000, wanting to avoid any implied connection between the Democratic Party and the Communist Party. According to The Washington Post, the terms were coined by journalist Tim Russert, during his televised coverage of the 2000 presidential election.
SOURCE: Wikipedia .... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states
Only if one labels people by color, which is the height of bigotry. And it seems like old Hillary and folks on the left are more angry and hateful than anybody else, and they're still that way two years after the 2016 election.
This post was edited by Stu Spelling Bee at October 22, 2018 4:08 PM MDT
my2cents 