Quantcast
Why can't Dems presidential hopefuls pull this much people for any of their rallys? <20,000+

Forums - Politics Discussion - Why can't Dems presidential hopefuls pull this much people for any of their rallys? <20,000+

o_O.Q said:

Love that photo. Sums it up perfectly.

Every like ten years we hear of some new "Socialist golden child" and the media and left point and praise it and say that is how it shoudl be done and it's the best country in the world.

Then 10 years later that very country is in a crisis, a total dictatorship, fleeing immigrants, ect. That place all of a sudden is "not socialism" but some new country that is doing it is the new golden child. 



Around the Network
Machiavellian said:
Azuren said:

Again, good luck with that. 

Lol, I like you Azuren.  Nothing warms my heart when I see someone go to great lengths to find something to be prejudice to someone else.  First it's a username, next you will be seeking my nationality, sex, gender, marital status who knows what else. To use your phrase, Good luck with that.

*picks a name that is literally the description of underhanded and conniving political tendencies*

*attempts to conflate a chosen name with marginalized characteristics while also making a pass at being on the moral high ground*

The difference between me pointing out your chosen name having a meaning that implies no good faith in political discussion and you assuming I would attack you based on a marginalized characteristic is that my point had a factual basis in reality while yours is just desperately reaching for a solid argument to stand on. And the persecution of marginalized communities isn't your cudgel to wield in debate whenever it is convenient, but I wouldn't really expect much less than a person who think "Machiavellian" is a suitable name to go under for political discussion.

PM sent -the-pi-guy

Last edited by the-pi-guy - on 28 June 2019

Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Azuren said:
Machiavellian said:

Lol, I like you Azuren.  Nothing warms my heart when I see someone go to great lengths to find something to be prejudice to someone else.  First it's a username, next you will be seeking my nationality, sex, gender, marital status who knows what else. To use your phrase, Good luck with that.

*picks a name that is literally the description of underhanded and conniving political tendencies*

*attempts to conflate a chosen name with marginalized characteristics while also making a pass at being on the moral high ground*

The difference between me pointing out your chosen name having a meaning that implies no good faith in political discussion and you assuming I would attack you based on a marginalized characteristic is that my point had a factual basis in reality while yours is just desperately reaching for a solid argument to stand on. And the persecution of marginalized communities isn't your cudgel to wield in debate whenever it is convenient, but I wouldn't really expect much less than a person who think "Machiavellian" is a suitable name to go under for political discussion.

There really isn't a difference.  I mean you can make all the excuses you want and call it a difference but that is pretty much what it is.  You chose something that has no meaning in a discussion and then tried to use it as some lofty reason to dismiss an opinion.  You have no clue about the username but you made an assumption on just that.  Now you are trying to parade that opinion as if it's based on anything but the bias you wanted to use in the first place.  Since the username is what I use for all forums I am registered to, why would you believe I made this username for political post.  I have had this username probably longer then you have been on this earth but it is fun to see you try to defend this bias nature of yours.



Machiavellian said:
Azuren said:

*picks a name that is literally the description of underhanded and conniving political tendencies*

*attempts to conflate a chosen name with marginalized characteristics while also making a pass at being on the moral high ground*

The difference between me pointing out your chosen name having a meaning that implies no good faith in political discussion and you assuming I would attack you based on a marginalized characteristic is that my point had a factual basis in reality while yours is just desperately reaching for a solid argument to stand on. And the persecution of marginalized communities isn't your cudgel to wield in debate whenever it is convenient, but I wouldn't really expect much less than a person who think "Machiavellian" is a suitable name to go under for political discussion.

There really isn't a difference.  I mean you can make all the excuses you want and call it a difference but that is pretty much what it is.  You chose something that has no meaning in a discussion and then tried to use it as some lofty reason to dismiss an opinion.  You have no clue about the username but you made an assumption on just that.  Now you are trying to parade that opinion as if it's based on anything but the bias you wanted to use in the first place.  Since the username is what I use for all forums I am registered to, why would you believe I made this username for political post.  I have had this username probably longer then you have been on this earth but it is fun to see you try to defend this bias nature of yours.

There really is a difference between marginalized groups and your username, but again: I wouldn't expect someone who would choose the name Machiavellian to represent any good faith arguments. The mere act of conflating a username with nationality, sex, or gender is fairly indicative of that, so thanks for proving my point.



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

the-pi-guy said:
EricHiggin said:

Red states never having a chance at electing a Conservative President again equates to red states not having an advantage to you?

Having your vote count more would equate to having an advantage.  

EricHiggin said:

-If you look at America in general the central portion of the country is red, and no, that does not mean they all would immediately leave and join together, but it would be a smart move to do it together and pre planned for many reasons. Even if it took a few larger more impactful states to do so, others would follow quickly in this situation.

That's conjecture.  

EricHiggin said:

-Owned by the red states? You think if a bunch of states separated that they would give all of their military weaponry to Washington? The people in those states paid it's fair share for it's portion, just like the roads.

I have no idea what you're responding to.  Never said anything about "giving all of their military weaponry to Washington".

EricHiggin said:

-Who said they planned on using them other than to defend themselves and their newly found Country?

If red states didn't use them, they'd be at a massive disadvantage.  

EricHiggin said:

-Well for any countries who rely on food sourced from America, it would matter quite a bit, and when the prices went way up, they wouldn't be happy, and would have the coastal country to blame as well. Otherwise what are they going to do, tell those central red states they can't leave and to just keeping fighting an unwinnable political battle? Sounds kinda like Brexit, no?

-When the red states have banded together and because they control a tonne of the local food supply, they decide to up their prices 10X let's say. The coastal country now has to pay that until they can bring in enough outside food, if they can. When those outside sources find out the food in coastal America now costs 10X as much, they will jack up their prices too, so those coastal states will now be paying 5X or more for what poorer, lower quality food they can get their hands on. How well is your economy going to do if your people are hungry, unhealthy, or fed and healthy but much poorer because of it? Not to mention things like if the east and west can truly be geographically split, then the central country can cause a major headache in terms of travel for the coastal country in many ways.

The problem is, red states don't have this giant food advantage that you think they do.   

California alone makes 11% of the US food production.  Other likely blue states like Minnesota and Illinois make up another 10%.  Those 3 states make up more food production than the top 3 red states.  Red states all together do have an advantage, but it's not as big as you think.  

And this is all ignoring that a huge portion of food gets imported from other countries.  In fact most fruit gets imported from other countries. Which set of states do you think they'd trade with? 

If you add in import, the red state's food advantage disappears.  

And again, this doesn't matter.   Most states are purple.  

Even Texas:

What do you think the 40% of Democratic voters would do?  

It just isn't possible for a red vs blue state conflict, because red and blue states don't exactly exist.  

So if the red states votes actually counted more then it would be an advantage? So there votes already don't count enough?

It's all basically conjecture if you want to start using that as a response, but it still doesn't change the central portion being mostly red.

You said "the US has a lot of guns, but most of them are owned by a small percentage of the population." So who owns them, other than the military?

So guns would only useful for offensive purposes in this case? Why?

Well I didn't think I would have to list every single thing the central portion could do. I guess I'll name a few more things they would use to persuade, like oil, coal, waterways, air travel.

Imagine not being able to fly straight across the country and having to go around the central portion every single time, where as the central portion would mostly only need to fly straight up and down. In terms of everything they can use to their advantage, this also wouldn't happen slowly over time, it would be put in place very quickly so the coasts couldn't simply plan ahead and import more overnight. You also failed to address the raised prices of everything and how that's going to impact the 'wealthier' coastal area's. You also haven't taken into account the water needed to grow that food and who's growing the food. How do you easily and cheaply grow your food if the central portion controls most of the waterways? You think because a Conservative farmer is in California, that they will side with their state or the coastal area's together? They are likely to sell to the central portion who is paying more on purpose to make sure the coastal area's have shortages. With the prices being so high, and having no other choice because it happens so quickly out of the blue, the central area will be able to afford it as well. Will the central portion also just let the coastal area's import as much as they can without hassle? What if those shipments are turned around or just delayed? What if the central portion purposely uses it's excess funds to gobble up as much imported food as possible so they have a monopoly on it, so the coasts are basically forced to purchase from them one way or another. The red states would also instate conservative policies and will get rid of illegal immigrants, reverse abortion, cut back on welfare, etc, which will change any purple states to solid red again. The border states could even 'open the border' and allow the immigrants to easily cross into the coastal regions while keeping them out of the central portion for the most part, forcing the coastal regions for focus more heavily on border security. The possibilities are endless.

The point is the central portion could easily outlast the coastal area's and it wouldn't take long for the coastal people to push their Gov to make a deal and get things back to the way they used to be.

Last edited by EricHiggin - on 28 June 2019

The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

Around the Network
EricHiggin said:

So if the red states votes counted actually counted more then it would be an advantage? So there votes already don't count enough?

I don't understand what you're thinking here.  

Small population states have an advantage with the electoral college.  

Each electoral vote in Wyoming covers a population of 192,500 people.  

Each electoral vote in California covers a population of 719,272 people.  

What that means is because of the electoral college, 1 vote in Wyoming counts the same as about 4 votes in California.  

EricHiggin said:

You said "the US has a lot of guns, but most of them are owned by a small percentage of the population." So who owns them, and the military has the rest.

So guns would only useful for offense purposes in this case? Why?

>You said "the US has a lot of guns, but most of them are owned by a small percentage of the population." So who owns them, and the military has the rest.

I wasn't talking about specific ownership.  Only pointing out that about 5% of the population owns most of the guns.  The rest of the 95% doesn't own very many guns.  

>So guns would only useful for offense purposes in this case? Why?

What alternative would there be?  Do you think the blue states would invade red states?  

EricHiggin said:

Well I didn't think I would have to list every single thing the central portion could do. I guess I'll name a few more things they would use to persuade, like oil, coal, waterways, air travel.

Imagine not being able to fly straight across the country and having to go around the central portion every single time, where as the central portion would mostly only need to fly straight up and down. In terms of everything they can use to their advantage, this also wouldn't happen slowly over time, it would be put in place very quickly so the coasts couldn't simply plan ahead and import more overnight. You also failed to address the raised prices of everything and how that's going to impact the 'wealthier' coastal area's. You also haven't taken into account the water needed to grow that food and who's growing the food. How do you easily and cheaply grow your food if the central portion controls most of the waterways?

Why would you have to go around the central portion every time?  If you fly from Florida to Alaska, you're going to fly over Canada. You aren't going to fly around Canada.  

Unless you think red states would try to shoot down planes, there's 0 reason to think they wouldn't just fly over.  

And if they were to start shooting down planes, how do you think other countries would respond?  Whose side do you think they'd take?

EricHiggin said:

How do you easily and cheaply grow your food if the central portion controls most of the waterways? You think because a Conservative farmer is in California, that they will side with their state or the coastal area's together? They are likely to sell to the central portion who is paying more on purpose to make sure the coastal area's have shortages. With the prices being so high, and having no other choice because it happens so quickly out of the blue, the central area will be able to afford it as well. Will the central portion also just let the coastal area's import as much as they can without hassle? What if those shipments are turned around or just delayed? What if the central portion purposely uses it's excess funds to gobble up as much imported food as possible so they have a monopoly on it, so the coasts are basically forced to purchase from them on way or another. The red states would also instate conservative policies and will get rid of illegal immigrants, reverse abortion, cut back on welfare, etc, which will change any purple states to solid red again. The boarder states could even 'open the border' and allow the immigrants to easily cross into the coastal regions while keeping them out of the central portion for the most part, forcing the coastal regions for focus more heavily on border security. The possibilities are endless.

The point is the central portion could easily outlast the coastal area's and it wouldn't take long for the coastal people to push their Gov to make a deal and get things back to the way they used to be.

>You think because a Conservative farmer is in California, that they will side with their state or the coastal area's together?

No i think the whole idea is nonsense, because there are no red vs blue states.  There are purple states.  

But sure, let's say the conservative farmer is evil and is perfectly okay with starving his neighbors to advance his side.  

>They are likely to sell to the central portion who is paying more on purpose to make sure the coastal area's have shortages.

That doesn't make sense.  It would still cost more to ship food farther distances.

>What if the central portion purposely uses it's excess funds to gobble up as much imported food as possible so they have a monopoly on it, so the coasts are basically forced to purchase from them on way or another

Why couldn't the coast states do the exact same?  

>Will the central portion also just let the coastal area's import as much as they can without hassle?

You could literally ask the opposite question.  

> The red states would also instate conservative policies and will get rid of illegal immigrants, reverse abortion, cut back on welfare, etc, which will change any purple states to solid red again.

Uh what.  

States aren't going to magically turn red due to passing conservative policies.  

>The boarder states could even 'open the border' and allow the immigrants to easily cross into the coastal regions while keeping them out of the central portion for the most part, forcing the coastal regions for focus more heavily on border security.

How would this one way wall work? 

EricHiggin said:

The point is the central portion could easily outlast the coastal area's and it wouldn't take long for the coastal people to push their Gov to make a deal and get things back to the way they used to be.

Not really.  



EricHiggin said:
the-pi-guy said:

Having your vote count more would equate to having an advantage.  

That's conjecture.  

I have no idea what you're responding to.  Never said anything about "giving all of their military weaponry to Washington".

If red states didn't use them, they'd be at a massive disadvantage.  

The problem is, red states don't have this giant food advantage that you think they do.   

California alone makes 11% of the US food production.  Other likely blue states like Minnesota and Illinois make up another 10%.  Those 3 states make up more food production than the top 3 red states.  Red states all together do have an advantage, but it's not as big as you think.  

And this is all ignoring that a huge portion of food gets imported from other countries.  In fact most fruit gets imported from other countries. Which set of states do you think they'd trade with? 

If you add in import, the red state's food advantage disappears.  

And again, this doesn't matter.   Most states are purple.  

Even Texas:

What do you think the 40% of Democratic voters would do?  

It just isn't possible for a red vs blue state conflict, because red and blue states don't exactly exist.  

So if the red states votes actually counted more then it would be an advantage? So there votes already don't count enough?

It's all basically conjecture if you want to start using that as a response, but it still doesn't change the central portion being mostly red.

You said "the US has a lot of guns, but most of them are owned by a small percentage of the population." So who owns them, other than the military?

So guns would only useful for offensive purposes in this case? Why?

Well I didn't think I would have to list every single thing the central portion could do. I guess I'll name a few more things they would use to persuade, like oil, coal, waterways, air travel.

Imagine not being able to fly straight across the country and having to go around the central portion every single time, where as the central portion would mostly only need to fly straight up and down. In terms of everything they can use to their advantage, this also wouldn't happen slowly over time, it would be put in place very quickly so the coasts couldn't simply plan ahead and import more overnight. You also failed to address the raised prices of everything and how that's going to impact the 'wealthier' coastal area's. You also haven't taken into account the water needed to grow that food and who's growing the food. How do you easily and cheaply grow your food if the central portion controls most of the waterways? You think because a Conservative farmer is in California, that they will side with their state or the coastal area's together? They are likely to sell to the central portion who is paying more on purpose to make sure the coastal area's have shortages. With the prices being so high, and having no other choice because it happens so quickly out of the blue, the central area will be able to afford it as well. Will the central portion also just let the coastal area's import as much as they can without hassle? What if those shipments are turned around or just delayed? What if the central portion purposely uses it's excess funds to gobble up as much imported food as possible so they have a monopoly on it, so the coasts are basically forced to purchase from them one way or another. The red states would also instate conservative policies and will get rid of illegal immigrants, reverse abortion, cut back on welfare, etc, which will change any purple states to solid red again. The border states could even 'open the border' and allow the immigrants to easily cross into the coastal regions while keeping them out of the central portion for the most part, forcing the coastal regions for focus more heavily on border security. The possibilities are endless.

The point is the central portion could easily outlast the coastal area's and it wouldn't take long for the coastal people to push their Gov to make a deal and get things back to the way they used to be.

I want you to know your scenarios read like a Ben Shapiro novella or fan fiction on r/trump. 

That's all. 

edit: or the political version of "my dad could totally beat up your dad". 



...

the-pi-guy said:
EricHiggin said:

So if the red states votes counted actually counted more then it would be an advantage? So there votes already don't count enough?

I don't understand what you're thinking here.  

Small population states have an advantage with the electoral college.  

Each electoral vote in Wyoming covers a population of 192,500 people.  

Each electoral vote in California covers a population of 719,272 people.  

What that means is because of the electoral college, 1 vote in Wyoming counts the same as about 4 votes in California.  

EricHiggin said:

You said "the US has a lot of guns, but most of them are owned by a small percentage of the population." So who owns them, and the military has the rest.

So guns would only useful for offense purposes in this case? Why?

>You said "the US has a lot of guns, but most of them are owned by a small percentage of the population." So who owns them, and the military has the rest.

I wasn't talking about specific ownership.  Only pointing out that about 5% of the population owns most of the guns.  The rest of the 95% doesn't own very many guns.  

>So guns would only useful for offense purposes in this case? Why?

What alternative would there be?  Do you think the blue states would invade red states?  

EricHiggin said:

Well I didn't think I would have to list every single thing the central portion could do. I guess I'll name a few more things they would use to persuade, like oil, coal, waterways, air travel.

Imagine not being able to fly straight across the country and having to go around the central portion every single time, where as the central portion would mostly only need to fly straight up and down. In terms of everything they can use to their advantage, this also wouldn't happen slowly over time, it would be put in place very quickly so the coasts couldn't simply plan ahead and import more overnight. You also failed to address the raised prices of everything and how that's going to impact the 'wealthier' coastal area's. You also haven't taken into account the water needed to grow that food and who's growing the food. How do you easily and cheaply grow your food if the central portion controls most of the waterways?

Why would you have to go around the central portion every time?  If you fly from Florida to Alaska, you're going to fly over Canada. You aren't going to fly around Canada.  

Unless you think red states would try to shoot down planes, there's 0 reason to think they wouldn't just fly over.  

And if they were to start shooting down planes, how do you think other countries would respond?  Whose side do you think they'd take?

EricHiggin said:

How do you easily and cheaply grow your food if the central portion controls most of the waterways? You think because a Conservative farmer is in California, that they will side with their state or the coastal area's together? They are likely to sell to the central portion who is paying more on purpose to make sure the coastal area's have shortages. With the prices being so high, and having no other choice because it happens so quickly out of the blue, the central area will be able to afford it as well. Will the central portion also just let the coastal area's import as much as they can without hassle? What if those shipments are turned around or just delayed? What if the central portion purposely uses it's excess funds to gobble up as much imported food as possible so they have a monopoly on it, so the coasts are basically forced to purchase from them on way or another. The red states would also instate conservative policies and will get rid of illegal immigrants, reverse abortion, cut back on welfare, etc, which will change any purple states to solid red again. The boarder states could even 'open the border' and allow the immigrants to easily cross into the coastal regions while keeping them out of the central portion for the most part, forcing the coastal regions for focus more heavily on border security. The possibilities are endless.

The point is the central portion could easily outlast the coastal area's and it wouldn't take long for the coastal people to push their Gov to make a deal and get things back to the way they used to be.

>You think because a Conservative farmer is in California, that they will side with their state or the coastal area's together?

No i think the whole idea is nonsense, because there are no red vs blue states.  There are purple states.  

But sure, let's say the conservative farmer is evil and is perfectly okay with starving his neighbors to advance his side.  

>They are likely to sell to the central portion who is paying more on purpose to make sure the coastal area's have shortages.

That doesn't make sense.  It would still cost more to ship food farther distances.

>What if the central portion purposely uses it's excess funds to gobble up as much imported food as possible so they have a monopoly on it, so the coasts are basically forced to purchase from them on way or another

Why couldn't the coast states do the exact same?  

>Will the central portion also just let the coastal area's import as much as they can without hassle?

You could literally ask the opposite question.  

> The red states would also instate conservative policies and will get rid of illegal immigrants, reverse abortion, cut back on welfare, etc, which will change any purple states to solid red again.

Uh what.  

States aren't going to magically turn red due to passing conservative policies.  

>The boarder states could even 'open the border' and allow the immigrants to easily cross into the coastal regions while keeping them out of the central portion for the most part, forcing the coastal regions for focus more heavily on border security.

How would this one way wall work? 

EricHiggin said:

The point is the central portion could easily outlast the coastal area's and it wouldn't take long for the coastal people to push their Gov to make a deal and get things back to the way they used to be.

Not really.  

So California should have more say because it has more people? So what you want is immigration wars? The red states offering whatever they have to, to get as many people to come there and vote conservative so they can have power again? I'm sure that'll turn out great for the country... While you're at it, make sure to allow the billionaires to call all the shots because they have more money, since more is the right answer apparently. Screw the minority and balancing needed for equality, right?..

Have you not seen how the far left is reacting to the right now, and how calm and gentle they are being? Imagine a further left President along with that after 16 years straight. I'm sure things will go smoothly and peacefully...

Yes, completely restricted airspace over the central portion or tolls to fly over, along with the road tolls to pass through. Who cares what other countries think, they can go around, or talk some sense into the coasts who brought this on.

You mean like tossing the EC so there will only be solely Democrat American leadership, further left in this case from now on? That's not evil? Food is a right?

Shipping costs are covered and the consumer is covering it. The coasts could pay more, but there is only so much money, and if you take it from one place for another, something somewhere has to deal with that loss, and you can be sure that those people who are part of that something won't be upset at all, not in the slightest...

Exactly. So now the coasts aren't getting their imported food, and the central portion isn't getting whatever. Who cares, the central portion has their own food, oil, water, and guns, so they are fine, and the coasts are now screwed. Are you trying to say that people don't or won't move if they can't live the type of life they want because of how the Gov is being run? Look at how many people are leaving states like California because of this right now.

A wall of guns if necessary. It won't be a problem though because the central conservative portion sucks and is poor apparently, plus the illegal immigrants aren't wanted there, where as the blue coasts want as many as possible because they care oh so much about them... Just wait until other countries see the coasts keeping those poor illegal immigrants out who are just going to perish otherwise. Who do you think they are going to side with then?

You mean like abolishing the EC?

I guess if we just start tossing stuff out and changing things that don't favor us, well then, what's really off the table?



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

the-pi-guy said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

The Electoral College is meant to be broadly representative to the population in each state, and without it, the smaller, less populated states loose all their influence and fall into obscurity.

Several countries have similar mechanics to the electoral college, and it's working well there. Why? Because they don't have winner takes all! Abolish Winner takes all/make it unconstitutional, and you'll see that every vote will count. Even better, votes to third parties wouldn't be lost votes anymore, making way to more nuanced politics as these also finally would get their weight and say in the US.

Something I would point out is that interests are rarely divided into big states and small states, but urban vs rural.  

The issue with the electoral college as it is, is that it causes rural votes in blue states to not get counted, and it causes urban votes in red states to not get counted.  Having the electoral college gone would lead Republican votes in California and Democratic votes in say Alabama would actually matter.  

That's not because of the electoral college - that's because the winner takes all.

Another point of the electoral college which often gets overlooked is to ensure that every state will have it's representatives. Remove the electoral college, and it becomes a luck-based mission for all the smaller states as the more populous states and cities would gobble up most, if not all the spots. As a result, they would only cater for their states/cities, leaving most of the country in the dust. That's why even a tiny country like Luxembourg still has 4 voting districts to ensure every region of the country is accounted for.

Last edited by Bofferbrauer2 - on 28 June 2019

EricHiggin said:

So California should have more say because it has more people? So what you want is immigration wars?

That's not exactly what it does.  

Eliminating the electoral college would make Republican votes in California actually matter.  Which could cause more Republicans to vote.  

EricHiggin said:

 Screw the minority and balancing needed for equality, right?..

That's what the electoral college does.  

Republicans in blue states get screwed over, because their vote doesn't matter.

Democrats in red states gets screwed over, because their vote doesn't matter.

EricHiggin said:

Have you not seen how the far left is reacting to the right now, and how calm and gentle they are being? Imagine a further left President along with that after 16 years straight. I'm sure things will go smoothly and peacefully...

How far left or right someone is, has absolutely no bearing on how "calm or gentle" people are.  

EricHiggin said:

Yes, completely restricted airspace over the central portion or tolls to fly over, along with the road tolls to pass through. Who cares what other countries think, they can go around, or talk some sense into the coasts who brought this on.

Yes, the evil coastal states making every vote the same.  

EricHiggin said:

You mean like tossing the EC so there will only be solely Democrat American leadership, further left in this case from now on? That's not evil? Food is a right?

Tossing the EC would not lead to solely Democratic American leadership.  The electoral college has voted the same as the popular vote nearly every single election.  So no, eliminating the EC would not cause only Democrat American leadership.  

EricHiggin said:

Shipping costs are covered and the consumer is covering it. The coasts could pay more, but there is only so much money, and if you take it from one place for another, something somewhere has to deal with that loss, and you can be sure that those people who are part of that something won't be upset at all, not in the slightest...

What happened to creating wealth?  

EricHiggin said:

Exactly. So now the coasts aren't getting their imported food, and the central portion isn't getting whatever. Who cares, the central portion has their own food, oil, water, and guns, so they are fine, and the coasts are now screwed. Are you trying to say that people don't or won't move if they can't live the type of life they want because of how the Gov is being run? Look at how many people are leaving states like California because of this right now.

>Are you trying to say that people don't or won't move if they can't live the type of life they want because of how the Gov is being run?

It's unlikely.  Most families are mixed.  

>the coasts are now screwed

More than likely both sides would be fine.

EricHiggin said:

A wall of guns if necessary. It won't be a problem though because the central conservative portion sucks and is poor apparently, plus the illegal immigrants aren't wanted there, where as the blue coasts want as many as possible because they care oh so much about them... Just wait until other countries see the coasts keeping those poor illegal immigrants out who are just going to perish otherwise. Who do you think they are going to side with then?

I guess if we just start tossing stuff out and changing things that don't favor us, well then, what's really off the table?

>plus the illegal immigrants aren't wanted there

Several red states have some of the largest undocumented populations.  

>I guess if we just start tossing stuff out and changing things that don't favor us, well then, what's really off the table?

Yes, making every vote equal and making every vote worth something is just unthinkable.