National divorce would be devastating for red states

Flash said:
Good point. All those red Republican states were poor when they were all Democratic states for over 100 years. That means political party has little to do with their economic condition.

Democrats support income redistribution from rich to poor except when it comes to blue and red states.
Click to expand...

Part of the problem is people like you who want to keep the division going.
 
Actually, it would devastate the blue states.

Fig1.png


The Western states would benefit most. They'd gain control of millions of acres of land within their boundaries. That alone has the potential to net them billions in new investment.

States like Arizona could negotiate new deals with Native American tribes over their land, ending the federal apartheid of the federal reservation system.

Fig1.png


The Red states would also suddenly be home to like 90% of the US military...

Meanwhile, the blue states get all the homeless

50382876491_83418469b1_c.jpg


Then, when manufacturing and industry flee the blue states, there won't be any money left to pay for stuff.

So, the blue states get screwed in a divorce...

While California and New York because of their high cost of living would have to deal with their massive poverty problems

povertymap2.jpg


Slide3-1200x675.gif
 
Economic power has been systematically removed from so called Red states....Conservatives should have spent the last 40 years objecting to this but of course like with almost everything else they failed.
 
Flash said:
People are discussing it like it could really happen. MTG also want to prevent people moving from blue to red states from voting for five years.
Click to expand...

We are discussing what a crazy woman says as if it is a respectable idea. She does not merit serious discussion.
 
floridafan said:
A so-called "national divorce" would work out poorly for red states,
Click to expand...
Really? Says who?

floridafan said:
MSNBC economic analyst Steve Rattner presented data on "Morning Joe"
Click to expand...
Oh, well of course, if this is the source then just tell me the conclusions I am to believe. I don't need any more than that.

Wait. That's all this article is, i.e. a pretense of being "conclusive data" and not dishonest propaganda that is nothing more than thinking for people by just feeding them conclusions.

I think we can write this article off as, perhaps, a classic example of a propaganda piece.
 
Doc Dutch said:
No shit. So are you disagreeing?
Click to expand...

Disagreeing with a divorce? Of course. That was the point of my previous post to you:

"Good point. All those red Republican states were poor when they were all Democratic states for over 100 years. That means political party has little to do with their economic condition."

A divorce is for those with no loyalty to the U. S. or the Constitution.
 
Flash said:
Disagreeing with a divorce? Of course. That was the point of my previous post to you:

"Good point. All those red Republican states were poor when they were all Democratic states for over 100 years. That means political party has little to do with their economic condition."

A divorce is for those with no loyalty to the U. S. or the Constitution.
Click to expand...

They were agrarian states when the industrial revolution made them fall behind. No big plot.
 
Flash said:
Disagreeing with a divorce? Of course. That was the point of my previous post to you:

"Good point. All those red Republican states were poor when they were all Democratic states for over 100 years. That means political party has little to do with their economic condition."

A divorce is for those with no loyalty to the U. S. or the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Or, from those with no loyalty to the Constitution...
 
Flash said:
Disagreeing with a divorce? Of course. That was the point of my previous post to you:

"Good point. All those red Republican states were poor when they were all Democratic states for over 100 years. That means political party has little to do with their economic condition."

A divorce is for those with no loyalty to the U. S. or the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Agreed division is bad for everyone.
 
Nordberg said:
We are discussing what a crazy woman says as if it is a respectable idea. She does not merit serious discussion.
Click to expand...

If she were the sole individual talking about this, you would have a solid point. the problem is that there are many talking about this, so it merits serious discussion.
 
Flash said:
Disagreeing with a divorce? Of course. That was the point of my previous post to you:

"Good point. All those red Republican states were poor when they were all Democratic states for over 100 years. That means political party has little to do with their economic condition."

A divorce is for those with no loyalty to the U. S. or the Constitution.
Click to expand...

those talking about divorce HAVE lost all faith in the U.S. and the Constitution. When both sides use the government as their weapon against each other and allow it to ignore their Constitutional limits, there is no more U.S. or Constitution.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
those talking about divorce HAVE lost all faith in the U.S. and the Constitution. When both sides use the government as their weapon against each other and allow it to ignore their Constitutional limits, there is no more U.S. or Constitution.
Click to expand...

You're clearly a major proponent of attacking the US and our Constitution.
 
Doc Dutch said:
You're clearly a major proponent of attacking the US and our Constitution.
Click to expand...

I'm clearly a major proponent in RESTORING the US and Constitution, like good ole Abe Lincoln. You're completely and apathetically comfortable with the status quo of the government ignoring the Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top