US Must Split Into 2 Seperate Nations (Red & Blue)

[Logophile]

The US map must change, with red states being one country. Blue states being another.

Then, no more friction. No more partisan investigation. No more twists of taxpayer money, and if Democrats want to engage in election fraud, sanctuary cities, tolerance of Islam, affirmative action discrimination, gun free zones, riot/looting tolerance, etc, the only victims will be other Democrats.

I think this is happening more or less naturally, state to state. I know that I am reluctant to move to a "blue" state. Almost did until I investigated the tax and crime rates, then declined. As to your proposal, the geographical problems could be worked it with "easements" if you want to call them that, for goods transport. The extreme South would have an easier time obviously with territorial continuity. From Texas to Florida would be red. Georgia is a question mark, but with the Gulf, water transport would take care of any attempted transport tax squeeze, something blue states may be likely to enact, as they'd no doubt be hurting for revenue. The west coast would go blue. But Alaska would go red, as per most of the mid Canadian border states. Interesting idea. Our current federal government is so far beyond its ability to represent average Americans, that at this juncture, the two state solution may be a realistic. Thanks!!

 

[dncc]

I think this is happening more or less naturally, state to state. I know that I am reluctant to move to a "blue" state. Almost did until I investigated the tax and crime rates, then declined. As to your proposal, the geographical problems could be worked it with "easements" if you want to call them that, for goods transport. The extreme South would have an easier time obviously with territorial continuity. From Texas to Florida would be red. Georgia is a question mark, but with the Gulf, water transport would take care of any attempted transport tax squeeze, something blue states may be likely to enact, as they'd no doubt be hurting for revenue. The west coast would go blue. But Alaska would go red, as per most of the mid Canadian border states. Interesting idea. Our current federal government is so far beyond its ability to represent average Americans, that at this juncture, the two state solution may be a realistic. Thanks!!

And when one state flips from red to blue or blue to red... every one who didn't win then moves to another state?

Of all of the silly tropes that get trotted out in the name of politics--about 1/2 of the nation doesn't vote in presidential elections much less local election by the way--this has to be the dumbest.

 

[protectionist75]

What was there to dodge?

All the content of aociswundumho's Post # 138, which you called a "cute fantasy" instead of addressing his content full post.

 

[protectionist75]

I think this is happening more or less naturally, state to state. I know that I am reluctant to move to a "blue" state. Almost did until I investigated the tax and crime rates, then declined. As to your proposal, the geographical problems could be worked it with "easements" if you want to call them that, for goods transport. The extreme South would have an easier time obviously with territorial continuity. From Texas to Florida would be red. Georgia is a question mark, but with the Gulf, water transport would take care of any attempted transport tax squeeze, something blue states may be likely to enact, as they'd no doubt be hurting for revenue. The west coast would go blue. But Alaska would go red, as per most of the mid Canadian border states. Interesting idea. Our current federal government is so far beyond its ability to represent average Americans, that at this juncture, the two state solution may be a realistic. Thanks!!

Good post. My only beef is with the idea of red states hurting for revenue. Well, with Trump trade policies restored, and China competition reduced, businesses would be opening left & right, workers being hired, and taxes being paid. Simultaneously, with millions of black welfare recipients moving away from red states to more welfare-friendly blue states, red states would retain more revenue, with decreasing costs.

 

[protectionist75]

And when one state flips from red to blue or blue to red... every one who didn't win then moves to another state?

Of all of the silly tropes that get trotted out in the name of politics--about 1/2 of the nation doesn't vote in presidential elections much less local election by the way--this has to be the dumbest.

Oh well, gee, one couldn't ever explore the idea of moving out of state, now could one ?

I moved from New York to Tennessee (Knoxville), back to New York, back to Tennessee (Memphis), to California, to Florida. No sweat. If you're not lazy.

 

[BlueTex]

Good post. My only beef is with the idea of red states hurting for revenue. Well, with Trump trade policies restored, and China competition reduced, businesses would be opening left & right, workers being hired, and taxes being paid. Simultaneously, with millions of black welfare recipients moving away from red states to more welfare-friendly blue states, red states would retain more revenue, with decreasing costs.

It's pretty telling that you think only black folks collect welfare or that they are the majority of welfare recipients... Goes along with all the other fantasies in this paragraph...

 

[dncc]

Oh well, gee, one couldn't ever explore the idea of moving out of state, now could one ?

I moved from New York to Tennessee (Knoxville), back to New York, back to Tennessee (Memphis), to California, to Florida. No sweat. If you're not lazy.

Deciding where to live based on the outcome of a presidential election is insane.

 

[dncc]

It's pretty telling that you think only black folks collect welfare or that they are the majority of welfare recipients... Goes along with all the other fantasies in this paragraph...

You really have to wonder if he is here to make the right wing look completely batshit crazy... Kudos to whoever planted him I guess....

 

[Jredbaron96]

All the content of aociswundumho's Post # 138, which you called a "cute fantasy" instead of addressing his content full post.

That's because it was a cute fantasy, i.e, not based on reality. It's not surprising. Libertarians are rarely a good source on the nature of societies and nations.

 

[protectionist75]

Deciding where to live based on the outcome of a presidential election is insane.

No it's not. Not when the outcome of a presidential election changes your quality of life to a significant degree.

In blue states, taxes are high, (to pay welfare for 3rd world migrants + American lazy bums), crime is much worse and getting worse, affirmative action runs rampant (is banned in 9 states), gun laws are awful (New York City residents are defenseless, etc, etc)

 

[protectionist75]

That's because it was a cute fantasy, i.e, not based on reality. It's not surprising. Libertarians are rarely a good source on the nature of societies and nations.

So if you thought it was "not based on reality", you had the opportunity to dissect his post, and SHOW US how you think it was not reality. Instead of dissenting with substance, your post was a dodge.

 

[Jredbaron96]

So if you thought it was "not based on reality", you had the opportunity to dissect his post, and SHOW US how you think it was not reality.

Thinking that the liberal states would turn into East Germany if given the chance is not a logical or sound statement, thus does not require any in depth response.

I've already explained in a previous post what would happen if the red and blue states were to split. You can read it there.

 

[protectionist75]

It's pretty telling that you think only black folks collect welfare or that they are the majority of welfare recipients... Goes along with all the other fantasies in this paragraph...

I didn't say "only" black folks, in fact I think a large portion collecting welfare will be non-black Hispanic migrants from Latin American countries . What is "telling" is your ease in jumping on my alleged words, which YOU said , not me.

I also did not say "majority". Again, your word, not mine.

So you blew that critique, now what are these other things you describe as "fantasies", since we cant read your mind.

 

[armycowboy]

I didn't say "only" black folks, in fact I think a large portion collecting welfare will be non-black Hispanic migrants from Latin American countries . What is "telling" is your ease in jumping on my alleged words, which YOU said , not me.

I also did not say "majority". Again, your word, not mine.

So you blew that critique, now what are these other things you describe as "fantasies", since we cant read your mind.

Statistically, the majority of people collecting welfare are white.

 

[uptower]

 

[dncc]

No it's not. Not when the outcome of a presidential election changes your quality of life to a significant degree.

In blue states, taxes are high, (to pay welfare for 3rd world migrants + American lazy bums), crime is much worse and getting worse, affirmative action runs rampant (is banned in 9 states), gun laws are awful (New York City residents are defenseless, etc, etc)

Again; your posts are the greatest argument for liberalism...ever.

For example....please explain how red states will export items to Asia with no state on the pacific coast other than Alaska? The only thing more hilarious than your assertion that moving based on the outcome of a presidential election will be what I'm sure will be an absurd remedy you provide for the question above. Seldom if ever does the quality of one's life change significantly based on the outcome of a presidential election save, outside, of Bush sending kids to die in the Middle East to to fight in Iraq in a war of choice.

 

[protectionist75]

Again; your posts are the greatest argument for liberalism...ever.

For example....please explain how red states will export items to Asia with no state on the pacific coast other than Alaska? The only thing more hilarious than your assertion that moving based on the outcome of a presidential election will be what I'm sure will be an absurd remedy you provide for the question above. Seldom if ever does the quality of one's life change significantly based on the outcome of a presidential election save, outside, of Bush sending kids to die in the Middle East to to fight in Iraq in a war of choice.

Your posts are so pathetically STUPID, that it is difficult to finds words bad enough to describe them. MILLIONS of people move inter-state all the time, to get away from the quality-of-life political consequences of living in a bad (liberal) state, or city. Some people cannot do this any longer. That's because their idiotic gun laws preventing them from carrying a gun, and defending themselves have stopped them from moving. they can no longer move away from this idiocy because of one reason. They're now DEAD.

Your posts are the greatest argument for conservatism...ever. I love the one where you said Joe Biden was doing a good job. OMG. Is there a doctor in the house ? I mean really.
EARTH TO DNCC: Biden's horrendous/catastrophic actions on just about everything, and the train wreck that he has turned America into, have put his presidency into free fall. His approval rate is in the 30s, while his disapproval rate is soaring (and this is in the Democrat polls). You are lost. Even most Democrats no longer support Biden. His actions have been incredibly bad and he is a demented, senile joke.

Biden's pitiful numbers >>

• the economy: 39 percent approve, while 55 percent disapprove;

• his job as Commander in Chief of the U.S. military: 37 percent approve, while 58 percent disapprove;

• taxes: 37 percent approve, while 54 percent disapprove;

• foreign policy: 34 percent approve, while 58 percent disapprove;

Biden’s Approval in Freefall | Opinion - Conservative | Before It's News

With the help of widescale voting irregularities, the media was powerful enough to shoehorn Joe Biden into power. It can stampede the herd into casting foolish, suicidal votes. But will media drovers be able to keep the herd in formation all the way to the stockyard? According to a poll...

beforeitsnews.com

Biden approval rating continues to plummet: ‘Battered on trust, leadership, competency’ in poll

President Joe Biden’s popularity continues to plummet over his foreign policy fiascos, inability to sell his keynote domestic agendas — and even his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

nypost.com

 

[protectionist75]

Statistically, the majority of people collecting welfare are white.

The majority of PEOPLE are white. Duh!

Proportionally whites are much less welfare collectors than blacks. And blacks, despite having greater opportunity than whites, continue to lag below whites in income and poverty thereby causing them to be greater welfare collectors.
And if you want to talk about "Statistically" whites are even less "welfare" collectors when you look at what statisticians define welfare to be. Included is Social Security and Unemployment insurance (which whites are higher) - but that's because those things are connected to HAVING A JOB, which overall, blacks tend to do less.

 

[protectionist75]

And when one state flips from red to blue or blue to red... every one who didn't win then moves to another state?

Of all of the silly tropes that get trotted out in the name of politics--about 1/2 of the nation doesn't vote in presidential elections much less local election by the way--this has to be the dumbest.

Cost of Living Calculator - Cost of Living Comparison Index Tool | Bankrate

Use this cost of living calculator to compare the cost of living between U.S. cities and determine if you will be able to maintain your current standard of living in another city.

www.bankrate.com

 

[Slartibartfast]

Good post. My only beef is with the idea of red states hurting for revenue. Well, with Trump trade policies restored, and China competition reduced, businesses would be opening left & right, workers being hired, and taxes being paid. Simultaneously, with millions of black welfare recipients moving away from red states to more welfare-friendly blue states, red states would retain more revenue, with decreasing costs.

So what I am getting here is that you agree that if red states succeed they will be in a bad place economically, unless a bunch of hypothetical future activities that you hope to happen actually happen.

 

[protectionist75]

So what I am getting here is that you agree that if red states succeed they will be in a bad place economically, unless a bunch of hypothetical future activities that you hope to happen actually happen.

I wonder how you "get" that red states "will be in a bad place economically," from me saying businesses would be opening left & right, workers being hired, and taxes being paid. Plus, the welfare costs would be less. al these point to the red states being in a GOOD place economically. Very strange.

I never said red states would be in a bad place economically in any way, or for any reason. YOU said that.

Also the things that you oddly call "a bunch of hypothetical future activities", are 99% certainties.

Is it a hypothetical future activity to suggest that if a field gets more rain, that it's grass will grow more ?

 

[Slartibartfast]

I wonder how you "get" that red states "will be in a bad place economically," from me saying businesses would be opening left & right, workers being hired, and taxes being paid. Plus, the welfare costs would be less. al these point to the red states being in a GOOD place economically. Very strange.

What you just described again is a hypothetical future you hope will happen in this scenario. There is no way of knowing that will happen. For example, if I were in the federal government and a state succeeded, I would immediately have the banks freeze their access to US currency, for example (because people do that kind of stuff in a state of war).

 

[protectionist75]

What you just described again is a hypothetical future you hope will happen in this scenario. There is no way of knowing that will happen. For example, if I were in the federal government and a state succeeded, I would immediately have the banks freeze their access to US currency, for example (because people do that kind of stuff in a state of war).

You are mistinterpreting the entire thread (and misspelling the words of your misinterpretation)

First of all, the word you are looking is SECEDED, not succeeded. Succeeded means to have been successful (gain) at something. Seceded means to leave something (like Confederate civil war states)

There is no secession being discussed here. What this thread is about is a MUTUAL AGREED split that Democrats and Republicans EQUALLY enact TOGETHER. Get it ?

As for the "hypothetical future" notion that was absurdly mentioned, I refuted that in Post 421, .. you might read it again.

 

[Slartibartfast]

You are mistinterpreting the entire thread (and misspelling the words of your misinterpretation)

First of all, the word you are looking is SECEDED, not succeeded. Succeeded means to have successful (gain) at something. Seceded means to leave something (like Confederate civil war states)

You are triggered quite easily by aren't you? Are you always this emotional and impulsive in your posting style?

There is no secession being discussed here. What this thread is about is a MUTUAL AGREED split that Democrats and Republicans EQUALLY enact TOGETHER. Get it ?

As for the "hypothetical future" notion that was absurdly mentioned, I refuted that in Post 421, .. you might read it again.

Yup, you refuted a hypothetical future by waxing about a hypothetical future. Got it.

Will you actually refute it now or will you just keep fantasizing?

Also, mutual agreement is laughable, blue areas have over 70% of the economy (and growing) and there is no reason to give that up.

 

[protectionist75]

You are triggered quite easily aren't you?

Yup, you refuted a hypothetical future by waxing about a hypothetical future. Got it.

Will you actually refute it now or will you just keep fantasizing?

I am "triggered" only so much as to correct one's errors, like the ones you are making.

Since you are the one who is engaging in rule-breaking, abusive, insult talk, it looks like my corrections of your laughable mistakes, have gotten YOU "triggered". As for your perceptions of "hypothetical", I see that as just a normal part of typical leftwing information-deprived ignorance, and distortion. So, NO you DON'T get it, but... Not my problem.