the-pi-guy said:
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.
>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?
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?
>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?
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?
PS1 - ! - We must build a console that can alert our enemies.
PS2 - @- We must build a console that offers online living room gaming.
PS3 - #- We must build a console that’s powerful, social, costs and does everything.
PS4 - $- We must build a console that’s affordable, charges for services, and pumps out exclusives.
PRO -%-We must build a console that's VR ready, checkerboard upscales, and sells but a fraction of the money printer.
PS5 - ^ -We must build a console that’s a generational cross product, with RT lighting, and price hiking.
PRO -&- We must build a console that Super Res upscales and continues the cost increases.
