johngaltshrugged
Diamond Member
- Oct 15, 2020
- 6,714
- 15,352
- 2,288
Unfortunately, the gulf between right & left has grown to Grand Canyon proportions & is just getting larger.
It's collectivists vs individualists & the lines are drawn mostly according to population density.
Rural areas in heavily Dem controlled states are still conservative & even California has more Republican voters than any other state.
Meanwhile, Texas is mostly deep red except for the large cities, like the capital of Austin. Almost every big city in every state is run by Dems or RINOs.
I would support the idea of 2 separate govts & elections based on population density, not by states.
Rural & less densely populated areas have 1 set of laws & the high population centers have theirs.
DC could control the cities & the rest of us have our own govt in the heartland, away from the influence of the coasts.
You would have to respect those laws when crossing into either jurisdiction but there would be no obligation to cross into an area if you don't like their rules. Ex: truck drivers can't be forced to deliver to cities.
The left could get the pure democracy they want while the right would get the liberty we demand.
Keep taxes separate & each side chooses the govt services provided, social or otherwise.
Both would contribute to a mutual national defense on a per capita basis, with manpower being a major part of the equation.
We would split the assets equally & maintain our own infrastructures.
The details would need to be ironed out but it's more feasible than a national reconciliation.
IMO, the gulf between us has grown too great & the totalitarian instincts of the left can only accept capitulation to their demands/agendas/narratives.
There is no reconciliation possible when 1 side insists on my way or the highway.
A red state/blue state national divorce would mean another civil war as the totalitarian collectivists wouldn't stand for individualist freedom lovers refusing to bend the knee & would use violence to enforce compliance.
This could allow us to coexist (which is why the left wouldn't accept it) without having to uproot families to move to a state they align with.
If you love your freedom, low taxes & a govt that stays in its lane, you'd move to the country.
If you want handouts, infanticide, high crime rates, corruption & opera, move to a city.
It's not perfect but we've already broken what we had.
nypost.com
It's collectivists vs individualists & the lines are drawn mostly according to population density.
Rural areas in heavily Dem controlled states are still conservative & even California has more Republican voters than any other state.
Meanwhile, Texas is mostly deep red except for the large cities, like the capital of Austin. Almost every big city in every state is run by Dems or RINOs.
I would support the idea of 2 separate govts & elections based on population density, not by states.
Rural & less densely populated areas have 1 set of laws & the high population centers have theirs.
DC could control the cities & the rest of us have our own govt in the heartland, away from the influence of the coasts.
You would have to respect those laws when crossing into either jurisdiction but there would be no obligation to cross into an area if you don't like their rules. Ex: truck drivers can't be forced to deliver to cities.
The left could get the pure democracy they want while the right would get the liberty we demand.
Keep taxes separate & each side chooses the govt services provided, social or otherwise.
Both would contribute to a mutual national defense on a per capita basis, with manpower being a major part of the equation.
We would split the assets equally & maintain our own infrastructures.
The details would need to be ironed out but it's more feasible than a national reconciliation.
IMO, the gulf between us has grown too great & the totalitarian instincts of the left can only accept capitulation to their demands/agendas/narratives.
There is no reconciliation possible when 1 side insists on my way or the highway.
A red state/blue state national divorce would mean another civil war as the totalitarian collectivists wouldn't stand for individualist freedom lovers refusing to bend the knee & would use violence to enforce compliance.
This could allow us to coexist (which is why the left wouldn't accept it) without having to uproot families to move to a state they align with.
If you love your freedom, low taxes & a govt that stays in its lane, you'd move to the country.
If you want handouts, infanticide, high crime rates, corruption & opera, move to a city.
It's not perfect but we've already broken what we had.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene suggests a ‘national divorce’ between red and blue states
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene tweeted her comment in response to a thread from a man who said he was moving from the San Francisco Bay area to Miami, and was wary about Florida politics.
nypost.com
