Anonymous wrote:Oh so DCUM isn’t traveling to red states?? How will any of you survive not being able to go to 30a or Disneyworld????

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Travel within the US instead to boost our economy. A lot of Appalachian cities in North Carolina were really hurt by the flooding last fall and could use your tourism.

Nope. Will find a nice place that didn't vote the person causing all the distress right now.

Seriously. No money for red states. If anything I'll travel to Canada and spend my money there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Travel within the US instead to boost our economy. A lot of Appalachian cities in North Carolina were really hurt by the flooding last fall and could use your tourism.

Hell no. We are avoiding red areas.

If you have money issues, don't travel. If you are afraid to fly, don't fly. But letting pure politics govern your travel is just plain silly. You are only hurting yourself, and life gets small really fast.

No it doesn’t? Avoiding red areas in the U.S leaves you with astonishing beauty and putting money in the pockets of people who didn’t do this. We’re doing Colorado, Mexico, and CA this spring/summer.

I think you meant New Mexico? In any event, you do rule out 2/3 or so of the US if you simply can't bear travel to the red states. I suppose you could manage this way for a few years, but will you still harbor hate for your fellow Americans because they voted differently from you in 2029? That would eliminate most of the national parks of the West, WDW and the rest of FL, OBX, Hilton Head, San Antonio, Charleston, New Orleans, Alaska etc. IMO, life is too short for that, and I don't see it as virtuous to avoid whole swaths of the country.

I not that I harbor “hate” for them, I’m just not interested in propping up their local economies. I’m not celebrating when they fail, even though they are all actively cheering on the destruction of my home, I’m just not interested in helping them out. I’m sure they’ll do just fine with all the well-off farmers and LMC folks suddenly experiencing a massive growth in wealth under Trump 🤣

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Travel within the US instead to boost our economy. A lot of Appalachian cities in North Carolina were really hurt by the flooding last fall and could use your tourism.

Hell no. We are avoiding red areas.

If you have money issues, don't travel. If you are afraid to fly, don't fly. But letting pure politics govern your travel is just plain silly. You are only hurting yourself, and life gets small really fast.

No it doesn’t? Avoiding red areas in the U.S leaves you with astonishing beauty and putting money in the pockets of people who didn’t do this. We’re doing Colorado, Mexico, and CA this spring/summer.

I think you meant New Mexico? In any event, you do rule out 2/3 or so of the US if you simply can't bear travel to the red states. I suppose you could manage this way for a few years, but will you still harbor hate for your fellow Americans because they voted differently from you in 2029? That would eliminate most of the national parks of the West, WDW and the rest of FL, OBX, Hilton Head, San Antonio, Charleston, New Orleans, Alaska etc. IMO, life is too short for that, and I don't see it as virtuous to avoid whole swaths of the country.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We usually take a nice international trip in the summer, but I’m wondering about the economy’s stability. We’re not feds or contractors but realize the recent changes to the government can
certainly impact the local economy.

So what are you doing? Continuing to travel or delaying?

Travel to Europe right now. It’s actually great. The planes are two-thirds empty.

Really? When did you last go? I'm looking to travel and honestly have been avoiding it because the airports and flights have been beyond backed since 2021.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Travel within the US instead to boost our economy. A lot of Appalachian cities in North Carolina were really hurt by the flooding last fall and could use your tourism.

Nope. Will find a nice place that didn't vote the person causing all the distress right now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Travel within the US instead to boost our economy. A lot of Appalachian cities in North Carolina were really hurt by the flooding last fall and could use your tourism.

Hell no. We are avoiding red areas.

If you have money issues, don't travel. If you are afraid to fly, don't fly. But letting pure politics govern your travel is just plain silly. You are only hurting yourself, and life gets small really fast.

No it doesn’t? Avoiding red areas in the U.S leaves you with astonishing beauty and putting money in the pockets of people who didn’t do this. We’re doing Colorado, Mexico, and CA this spring/summer.

I think you meant New Mexico? In any event, you do rule out 2/3 or so of the US if you simply can't bear travel to the red states. I suppose you could manage this way for a few years, but will you still harbor hate for your fellow Americans because they voted differently from you in 2029? That would eliminate most of the national parks of the West (visit the national parks in Colorado) , WDW and the rest of FL (Disneyland original in California) OBX, Hilton Head, (Cape Cod, Kennebunkport, Newport) San Antonio, Charleston, New Orleans (San Juan, USVI), Alaska (Banff and the rest of Western Canada) etc. IMO, life is too short for that, and I don't see it as virtuous to avoid whole swaths of the country.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Travel within the US instead to boost our economy. A lot of Appalachian cities in North Carolina were really hurt by the flooding last fall and could use your tourism.

Hell no. We are avoiding red areas.

If you have money issues, don't travel. If you are afraid to fly, don't fly. But letting pure politics govern your travel is just plain silly. You are only hurting yourself, and life gets small really fast.

No it doesn’t? Avoiding red areas in the U.S leaves you with astonishing beauty and putting money in the pockets of people who didn’t do this. We’re doing Colorado, Mexico, and CA this spring/summer.

I think you meant New Mexico? In any event, you do rule out 2/3 or so of the US if you simply can't bear travel to the red states. I suppose you could manage this way for a few years, but will you still harbor hate for your fellow Americans because they voted differently from you in 2029? That would eliminate most of the national parks of the West, WDW and the rest of FL, OBX, Hilton Head, San Antonio, Charleston, New Orleans, Alaska etc. IMO, life is too short for that, and I don't see it as virtuous to avoid whole swaths of the country.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Travel within the US instead to boost our economy. A lot of Appalachian cities in North Carolina were really hurt by the flooding last fall and could use your tourism.

Hell no. We are avoiding red areas.

If you have money issues, don't travel. If you are afraid to fly, don't fly. But letting pure politics govern your travel is just plain silly. You are only hurting yourself, and life gets small really fast.

No it doesn’t? Avoiding red areas in the U.S leaves you with astonishing beauty and putting money in the pockets of people who didn’t do this. We’re doing Colorado, Mexico, and CA this spring/summer.

I think you meant New Mexico? In any event, you do rule out 2/3 or so of the US if you simply can't bear travel to the red states. I suppose you could manage this way for a few years, but will you still harbor hate for your fellow Americans because they voted differently from you in 2029? That would eliminate most of the national parks of the West, WDW and the rest of FL, OBX, Hilton Head, San Antonio, Charleston, New Orleans, Alaska etc. IMO, life is too short for that, and I don't see it as virtuous to avoid whole swaths of the country.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Travel within the US instead to boost our economy. A lot of Appalachian cities in North Carolina were really hurt by the flooding last fall and could use your tourism.

Hell no. We are avoiding red areas.

If you have money issues, don't travel. If you are afraid to fly, don't fly. But letting pure politics govern your travel is just plain silly. You are only hurting yourself, and life gets small really fast.

No it doesn’t? Avoiding red areas in the U.S leaves you with astonishing beauty and putting money in the pockets of people who didn’t do this. We’re doing Colorado, Mexico, and CA this spring/summer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Travel within the US instead to boost our economy. A lot of Appalachian cities in North Carolina were really hurt by the flooding last fall and could use your tourism.

Hell no. We are avoiding red areas.

If you have money issues, don't travel. If you are afraid to fly, don't fly. But letting pure politics govern your travel is just plain silly. You are only hurting yourself, and life gets small really fast.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We usually take a nice international trip in the summer, but I’m wondering about the economy’s stability. We’re not feds or contractors but realize the recent changes to the government can
certainly impact the local economy.

So what are you doing? Continuing to travel or delaying?

Travel to Europe right now. It’s actually great. The planes are two-thirds empty.

Anonymous wrote:We usually take a nice international trip in the summer, but I’m wondering about the economy’s stability. We’re not feds or contractors but realize the recent changes to the government can
certainly impact the local economy.

So what are you doing? Continuing to travel or delaying?