Some Red State/Blue State Indicia

[sturg33]

[thethe]

All we need is the people capital and we will thrive.

Goodbye failed leftist ideologies that destroyed all of our great cities.....

[mqt]

This is a profoundly unserious idea. Are you willing to spend billions upon billions of dollars to execute such a plan?

[thethe]

I'd spend anything to be free of the Marxist lunacy we are seeing take over the left right now.

[mqt]

I'd spend anything to be free of the Marxist lunacy we are seeing take over the left right now.

Creating a welfare state to own the Libs.

[thethe]

Creating a welfare state to own the Libs.

It would be the best upfront investment that could ever be made.

THe productivity following in a Southern Nation would be tremendous.

[sturg33]

This is a profoundly unserious idea. Are you willing to spend billions upon billions of dollars to execute such a plan?

Yes. Much cheaper than the trillions we spend on nonsense

[mqt]

Yes. Much cheaper than the trillions we spend on nonsense

You think we spend on nonsense now? Imagine the defense spending alone in a situation where two fundamentally incompatible nations divide up the nukes. I sincerely hope you’re doing a bit here, because if you actually think this is a viable option, I have no words.

[sturg33]

You think we spend on nonsense now? Imagine the defense spending alone in a situation where two fundamentally incompatible nations divide up the nukes. I sincerely hope you’re doing a bit here, because if you actually think this is a viable option, I have no words.

What we have now, where each sides demand to rule over the other, is not a viable suitable option.

Let the communist utopias have their ****holes... the free states can have there prosperity. We can trade with each other, and we can have an alliance to protect against foreign invaders.

Would be a lot less droning children, can tell ya that

[msstate7]

You think we spend on nonsense now? Imagine the defense spending alone in a situation where two fundamentally incompatible nations divide up the nukes. I sincerely hope you’re doing a bit here, because if you actually think this is a viable option, I have no words.

The left nation doesn't want the guns, nukes, etc. They won't need them bc they'll create equality, and everyone will be happy. The right will take those nasty nukes and guns bc we don't care if our kids get gunned down at school. Something like this...

[thethe]

The left nation doesn't want the guns, nukes, etc. They won't need them bc they'll create equality, and everyone will be happy. The right will take those nasty nukes and guns bc we don't care if our kids get gunned down at school. Something like this...

We will find out real fast that the left loves guns....as long as they are the ones that have them all.

[mqt]

What we have now, where each sides demand to rule over the other, is not a viable suitable option.

Let the communist utopias have their ****holes... the free states can have there prosperity. We can trade with each other, and we can have an alliance to protect against foreign invaders.

Would be a lot less droning children, can tell ya that

As I said in a different thread, you’d essentially have to move anywhere from 30-49% of an every state’s population, and that’s an underestimate since we’d have to develop geographical borders. All these people would need new homes and jobs. You’d either have to move rural people into cities and vice versa or leave areas uninhabited. Businesses would be destroyed as their employee bases moved away from whichever ideological side they disagree with. Other businesses would just go away entirely as the owners moved. We’d have to divide up an entire military based on ideology and determine how to handle the resources. We’d have to create new power grids and transportation systems. We’d have to build two new governments and find a way for those two governments to agree upon any major conflict to avoid a war. All of this is just scratching the surface.

[thethe]

As I said in a different thread, you’d essentially have to move anywhere from 30-49% of an every state’s population, and that’s an underestimate since we’d have to develop geographical borders. All these people would need new homes and jobs. You’d either have to move rural people into cities and vice versa or leave areas uninhabited. Businesses would be destroyed as their employee bases moved away from whichever ideological side they disagree with. Other businesses would just go away entirely as the owners moved. We’d have to divide up an entire military based on ideology and determine how to handle the resources. We’d have to create new power grids and transportation systems. We’d have to build two new governments and find a way for those two governments to agree upon any major conflict to avoid a war. All of this is just scratching the surface.

You wouldn't have to move everyone. Draw up the new nations lines and let people make their own choices.

[mqt]

You wouldn't have to move everyone. Draw up the new nations lines and let people make their own choices.

Sounds like quite the recipe for violence.

[thethe]

Sounds like quite the recipe for violence.

Why is that?

Let the market dictate where people want to live. A liberal in the South was making that decision already and vice versa for a conservative in a marxist ****hole (me sadly).

[mqt]

Why is that?

Let the market dictate where people want to live. A liberal in the South was making that decision already and vice versa for a conservative in a marxist ****hole (me sadly).

Because I think you’re dramatically underselling the social response to the nation breaking apart along ideological lines. Plus, every policy you disagree with would likely get worse when the debates would go from liberal vs. conservative to very liberal/conservative vs. not as liberal/conservative. The nations would sprint to the margins and there’s just no way that it wouldn’t lead to extreme discrimination against the out group.

[thethe]

Because I think you’re dramatically underselling the social response to the nation breaking apart along ideological lines. Plus, every policy you disagree with would likely get worse when the debates would go from liberal vs. conservative to very liberal/conservative vs. not as liberal/conservative. The nations would sprint to the margins and there’s just no way that it wouldn’t lead to extreme discrimination against the out group.

Oh, I'd move immediately. Less would leave the South,

[sturg33]

As I said in a different thread, you’d essentially have to move anywhere from 30-49% of an every state’s population, and that’s an underestimate since we’d have to develop geographical borders. All these people would need new homes and jobs. You’d either have to move rural people into cities and vice versa or leave areas uninhabited. Businesses would be destroyed as their employee bases moved away from whichever ideological side they disagree with. Other businesses would just go away entirely as the owners moved. We’d have to divide up an entire military based on ideology and determine how to handle the resources. We’d have to create new power grids and transportation systems. We’d have to build two new governments and find a way for those two governments to agree upon any major conflict to avoid a war. All of this is just scratching the surface.

People can just stay in Florida if they choose, or move to California if they want to live in the communist utopia. The key is to get everyone off the federal government which has become so partisan and so powerful that it is unacceptable to half the population

[Tapate50]

It wouldn’t really be the North and south. It would be the Northeast, and west coast

[mqt]

People can just stay in Florida if they choose, or move to California if they want to live in the communist utopia. The key is to get everyone off the federal government which has become so partisan and so powerful that it is unacceptable to half the population

What happens with the military?