Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't get any roads without politics in the first place. Everything is "politics". I don't see the issue with the comment, he didn't assign any judgement to the map. Which is where the politics problem usually arises.
What roads? It has nothing to do with roads - it's purely a map of contiguous democrat counties. Besides, that's moving the goalpast from "its not political" to "well yeah it is political but its ok". It's also a bad example precisely for the same reason you (presumably) think it's a good example people can relate to - everyone agrees we need roads. Furthermore, clearly some things are too political to bring up in so…
The original post is about roads, those roads exist (or don't exist) due to political processes.
> Furthermore, clearly some things are too political to bring up in some places.
Can you please explain what is too political about that post? I don't really get what you take offense at? It's just the result of a vote?