manning5 Loc: Richmond, VA

===================
So the Red states are beholden to the Blue states. Nothing new there. What may be new is somehow penalizing the Red states for their existence, cutting them off from Federally distributed funds, or reducing their impact on voting schemes. Somehow this strikes me as a divisive argument totally against the idea of e plus unum. I think it is anti-patriotic rampant leftism, and very over-simplified. I suppose you would like it if we had nothing but city across the entire land, a rather stupid wish. I believe a solid case can be made to hold the nation together and treat each state in accord with its needs, just as the Feds do for the elderly, the ill, the crippled, and the unemployed, and for the schools. We do need farmlands and their products, we need space for expansion too, and important natural resources lie in the Red states, the flyover country, and the forests. Most all major water sources that feed the cities first flow through rural areas, and water rights can become a very sticky wicket. But most of all we must support the Red states because they are part of the nation and our heritage, their gdp be damned.

straightUp Loc: California

No one can survive without food, but what makes you think blue states depend on red states to get it? As much as you want it to be true the facts disagree.

Let's look at another fun fact... Gross receipts of farms... According to the USDA the state with the highest percentage of GDP from agriculture is blue, not red. California produces more food than any other state in the union with an 11% share of the total. Iowa is second with 8.2%.
https://data.ers.usda.gov/reports.aspx?ID=17839

That being said it's fair to say that California is perfectly capable of feeding itself. So is Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Minnesota Pennsylvania, Illinois and maybe even New York. The only blue states that might struggle would be the little crowded ones along the Atlantic coast like New Jersey and Delaware, but these are wealthy states, perfectly capable of securing food supplies from other places like Canada.

And what are we actually getting from the red states anyway? They tend to produce a LOT of grain and meat but not much else. Most of that grain comes to us in the form of junk food (No thanks!) and my favorite meat is fish, which certainly doesn't come from red states, although I do like chicken but even that's something blue states can and do produce for themselves. I guess if I was a glutton for red meat, which I am not, I'd be worried... although come to think of it, there's a lot of cattle ranching in the western blue states, like Oregon and Washington.

Yeah, I don't think the blue states would have to worry too much about food if they divorced the red states. Sorry, I know it's the only trump card you have, but facts are facts.

Rose42

Yes we have been through this before and your points have been countered despite your attempt to deny it. Doesn’t matter if you grew up with guns either.

Those who are knowledgeable and experienced in defence aren’t ‘gun nuts’ or obsessed. If you’re happy with what you have, good. But these days attacks aren’t that simple



Its not my argument thats idiotic. But nice try



Go ahead and tell them something I never said.



Doesn’t matter what you want other people to have. The AR 15 scares people but is rarely used in crimes. Handguns are most often used but its not as easy to manipulate people with pictures of handguns

straightUp Loc: California

Don't get all butthurt... that's not what I am saying. I'm not suggesting that the red states OWE the blue states anything, just that they should maybe consider the situation before bashing blue states for being liberal.


E plus unum never meant that some get more privilege and free rides at the expense of others. Do you think it's fair that 14 red states get handouts from the government that the other states have to pay for? Please explain (without sounding like a socialist) why I should accept that. And the only reduction I would like see on the impact red states have on voting schemes is to make sure they get the SAME representation as everyone else, which is not the case today.


Keep in mind the whole argument is in response to a right-wing suggestion that the country divide. Have you not been paying attention?


No, I wouldn't like that. In fact one of the things I like about cities is the consolidation of people so that they take up LESS space. I just drove from Syracuse to Philadelphia through some gorgeous countryside. Imagine if the 8 million people in NYC decided to live in the country? There wouldn't BE anymore country side. Maybe you should limit your critique to what I say, not what you imagine I am thinking.


For the sake of your argument, I'll just pretend for now that we actually do this for the elderly, the ill, the crippled, the unemployed and the schools.


First of all, let me set you straight on something. As I've already stated, this topic is a response to a Republican member of Congress suggesting that we divide in order to liberate the red states from liberals... Her suggestion, not mine. (I know.. it's not MJD, it's MTG. My bad but it's too late to change the title now.) My response was to note how bad that would be for the red states that she imagines herself "saving".

More significantly, the OP is a response to a suggestion I've heard repeatedly on right-wing media that the blue states would never allow it because Democrats want to control the lives of everyone in the red states. That's actually what led me to the write the post. Basically, F U right-wing media for suggesting the liberals want to control the red states. You want a divorce, Margie? Fine, let's see how much I really care.

That being said... I do actually respect your socialist view on treating "each state in accord with its needs", but I also think the country is too big for one centrally controlled government and I'm curious as to why you think it's so important that we stick together. I mean... what are you so afraid of?

Justice101

The blue states would have no problems then supporting all of the illegal aliens that came into the country under Obama's illegal DACA and DAPA programs, as well as all the illegal aliens that Biden has invited to come to the U.S.

Sanctuary Cities List
States
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Illinois
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Oregon
Vermont
Washington
https://cis.org/Map-Sanctuary-Cities-Counties-and-States

As of 2020, FAIR estimates that there are approximately 14.5 million illegal aliens residing within the United States. This number is marginally higher than FAIR’s previous estimate of 14.3 million in 2019.

Based on FAIR’s most recent comprehensive fiscal cost study, illegal aliens are likely imposing a net fiscal burden of at least $133.7 billion.[1] That’s an increase of nearly $2 billion over the past year.
https://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal-immigration/2020-how-many-illegal-aliens-us
{That isn't including the 5-6 million illegals that have come in under Biden}

straightUp Loc: California

Honestly, I can't tell if your delusions are a product of your inability or your refusal to even understand what my points are.


I know that... but you were telling me that my knowledge is superficial and since I've been shooting guns since the age of 10 and I've been concerned about protecting my home and my family since I was 24 I figured you were raising the bar. Like I said I have friends who are NRA members who DO know more about guns than I do and yes... they ARE gun nerds. Sorry if you find that offensive.


OMG, you're one of those. See any black helicopters outside Rose? LOL


Yes, it is... when someone tries to disqualify an argument for gun control by suggesting the person isn't an expert on guns, it's downright idiotic.


Why? I said a shotgun is a better weapon for home defense than an AR-15 and you said that was evidence that I don't know much about home defense. That's exactly what you said and I know my NRA buddies would get a good laugh from that one, so why would I tell them something you didn't say?

PeterS

Here's the question...would states who run a surplus help those red states that don't???

PeterS

So how would this work...would Red states have their own capital and the same for Blue states? That wouldn't work because Cons lack the ability to accept responsibility and without Democrats to blame all their problems on what would they do? This wouldn't solve any problems, if anything it would just make matters worse with war the only solution the teeny-tiny conservative mind can come up with...just as it is trying to do now.

Rose42

I have no delusions and your points are easy to understand. Nice try though Lol



That doesn’t mean you know what you’re doing. A lot of people shoot and that doesn’t mean a whole lot though its good to know the mechanics.

Its amusing you think I find anything you say offensive.



There’s that ignorance. I’m a realist. You should pay more attention to what goes on. Most people never encounter violence and have no idea what to expect.



Not at all. A familiar tactic by you to try and twist what someone says to suit yourself. And I didn’t ‘suggest’ you weren’t an expert - I said it. I’m not against gun control but I am against banning.



No, its because you think the shotgun is all you need - it had nothing to do with not wanting an AR. Its funny you keep mentioning your NRA buddies as if thats supposed to mean anything.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

There is something very wrong with this lad.

manning5 Loc: Richmond, VA

=====================

Afraid? Oh, there are lots of things I could be afraid of if I let myself. War, nuclear war, Biological war, chemical war, pandemics, fatal illnesses, rioters on my property, robbers, the sky falling, wolves at the door, a mentally ill person with an AR-15 or any gun and so on.

But I am not afraid. At this point I am a realist, a fatalist, and still a Christian conservative.
The idea of what amounts to disbanding the United States appalls me, as does the idea of taking away states rights or more seriously reducing them. It is ...one nation, indivisible... for me. Thus, there is no option to divide us into separate Red and Blue nations. So, we must keep marching on as a union, and coping with the problems of
the cities and rural areas just as we have for over 245 years. Evidently, the concept of union rests far too lightly on some shoulders. One should assign the word traitor to them for that is exactly what they are.
Indeed, the federal government should loosen the controls on the states they have amassed over many years in favor of states rights and subsidiarity, and cease the use of their money leverage on states to gain their objectives. Further, it is in everyone's best interests if the feds support the economic resurgence of poorer states by encouraging investments in industrial development, creation of government and military bases in the territories, and infrastructure developments that aid the areas.

A word or two on the matter of gun ownership:
1. Everyone should have the right to own and be trained to own and use guns at a fairly early age. They should become reasonably proficient in their use.
2. I see no reason for civilians to own fully automatic weapons, or weapons of very high caliber, say beyond 50 cal or 10 ga. perhaps with a few regulated exceptions.
3. The right to carry a weapon either openly or hidden should be fully lawful.
4. There should be no restriction on magazine capacity.
5. The AR-15 is not an assault weapon. It is a semi-automatic rifle of low caliber and should not be restricted from civilian ownership.
6. For self-defense and defense of the home virtually any common weapon is useful: pistol, rifle, shotgun, etc. To cover most defensive situations, I own one or more of each type, and they are always near at hand and ready to shoot. I am a marksman, too with the weapons I own. Each type has its best uses.
7. While not fully reported by police departments, the data available shows that over 2.5 million incidents a year occur where use of a defensive gun was instrumental in thwarting a criminal action at homes or on the street. One can speculate how many of these incidents might have been fatal, rapes, or serious assaults had the potential victim not possessed a weapon.
8. Laws do not inhibit criminals from acquiring weapons, nor do restricting sales by dealers. It does cause criminals to spend more, double or triple the retail cost, for a weapon on the black market, or to have to steal the money to get one, or to steal one. The black market is very much alive in major cities, and their source of weaponry is usually illegal imports from willing foreign nations and dealers. Thus, restrictions on civilian purchases is in fact ineffective. So have efforts been to shut down the black markets! EOR

straightUp Loc: California

Very good question... Today they do because the federal government mandates it, but if the states divorce... I mean to the point that MTG is referring to where red states can tell Democrats they can't vote until they've lived in that state for five years which violates several amendments to the U.S. Constitution,.. then who knows?

RascalRiley Loc: Somewhere south of Detroit

The notion of separation is so complex.

Who will controls DC? Being as this is a Republican initiative they will not give control to left leaning military leaders or appoint moderate judges.

Will cities in Red America become civilized?

manning5 Loc: Richmond, VA

===================

This issue is moot. It will not happen. It is Anti-American. For one reason, it is treasonous, and for another it is totally impractical. Then too, the people will not let it happen. Raving about it smacks of sedition. I do hope the FBI is tracking those who champion such a move, and bring them to justice if they move an inch toward implementing it. There is a limit to certain kinds of speech, and this is coming close.

RascalRiley Loc: Somewhere south of Detroit

Some will oppose it vehemently. Others will see it as way to battle the Wokes.

It has traction because MTG does nothing without the approval of her exceptional donor base. She is very good at fundraising.

They don’t care. If this will be financially beneficial to them they will continue back her.