If the USA split into two countries, Republicans vs Democrats, which would do better?

[Orlando Magic]

This is not a troll thread. I'm genuinely curious.

Everyone has to pick a side.

If you want to set everyone's net worth back to zero in this hypothetical, you can.

[DeuceWallaces]

Ha, red states as a singular nation would rot. California and New York alone would surpass whatever a GOP nation could bring. What would their urban base be? I guess Dallas.

The blue nation would have an incredible urban base and enough agriculture and manufacturing through California, Michigan, Illinois, Penn, etc. to survive.

Fun question.

[HeatFanSince88]

republicans.

Only because they have less brown/black people.

Standards of living of an area seems to be directly correlated to skin pigmentation. a country is not made up by its policies, but by it's people. The darker people a country/area has, the more corrupt and crimeridden it generally is. This is why even in civilized countries such as the United states, the areas with all black people is virtually the same of that of a third world country full of black people. a community is not defined by its policies, but by its people.

[Patrick Chewing]

Ha, red states as a singular nation would rot. California and New York alone would surpass whatever a GOP nation could bring. What would their urban base be? I guess Dallas.

The blue nation would have an incredible urban base and enough agriculture and manufacturing through California, Michigan, Illinois, Penn, etc. to survive.

Fun question.


Riiiiight. Meanwhile, California is seriously bankrupt and everyone is moving the hell out of New York.

[warriorfan]

Republicans would be too busy watching cuck porn to do anything productive (http://gawker.com/report-republicans-get-hard-for-cucks-1783684946)

[Akrazotile]

Ha, red states as a singular nation would rot. California and New York alone would surpass whatever a GOP nation could bring. What would their urban base be? I guess Dallas.

The blue nation would have an incredible urban base and enough agriculture and manufacturing through California, Michigan, Illinois, Penn, etc. to survive.

Fun question.


He said what if the country split into republicans vs democrats.

California and New York have millions of republicans.

If you divided Republicans and Democrats into separate sides of the country, whose country would be better to live in?

The answer is overwhelmingly Republican. Eventually both countries would develop divergent political parties, but in the meantime... overwhelmingly Republicans.

Republicans = Manly men and hot chicks.


https://s4.postimg.io/r53a4rvvh/MAGAhat.jpg
https://s4.postimg.io/nb55v5mt9/13737034_1724971754421190_1433038436_n_jpg_ig_ca.j pg


Democrats = Ghetto thugs and their pretentious try-hard hipster babysitters.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/2e/6b/a5/2e6ba5daac9a6b00db95b95ddd132b7f.jpg
http://oi57.tinypic.com/huo86b.jpg




Where would YOU rather be?

[Patrick Chewing]

God Douche is one ugly broad.

[Akrazotile]

God Douche is one ugly broad.


Which is sad considering he'd be one of the BETTER looking girls in Liberal Land.


https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/debbie-wasserman-schultz-close-up3.jpg
http://www.therightplanet.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/scary_michelle.jpg
https://s4.postimg.io/jabrwbq9p/Amy_Schumer_Fat_Feminist.jpg

[Long Duck Dong]

Is this a joke? Republicans more or less get a long.

A Democrat society would be a total sh!tstorm

BLM
White SJWS
Mexican illegals
Feminists
Muslims
Wealthy white guilt elites
Environmentalists

The only thing holding these people together right now are them using the average common sense Americans as a scapegoat for America''s problems. Take this away and they'd be at each other's throats. Just take a look at Democrat conventions when these people actually gave to rub elbows with each other. :oldlol:

[DeuceWallaces]

The overwhelming majority of the top 100 media markets are Democrats. We're doing fine.

[JtotheIzzo]

blue states >>> red states (except if it wad a weigh in)

[west_tip]

This is an interesting hypothetical.


Is this a joke? Republicans more or less get a long.

A Democrat society would be a total sh!tstorm

BLM
White SJWS
Mexican illegals
Feminists
Muslims
Wealthy white guilt elites
Environmentalists

The only thing holding these people together right now are them using the average common sense Americans as a scapegoat for America''s problems. Take this away and they'd be at each other's throats. Just take a look at Democrat conventions when these people actually gave to rub elbows with each other. :oldlol:

See, thats the thing. The main thing that really binds the Democratic coalition together is the perception that they have a common oppressor in the white, straight, Christian, conservative male. Without that common cause what is there to glue gays, Muslims, Mexicans, blacks and liberals together?

This hypothetical Democratic United States of America would certainly be more racially heterogenous than its Republican equivalent but would it have the necessary cultural cohesion to form a bona fide nation out of? I think it would have some of the same problems as a country like Belgium or Sweden does with enclaves of poorly integrated immigrants living in what are effectively separate, self contained societies.

[Nick Young]

Is this a joke? Republicans more or less get a long.

A Democrat society would be a total sh!tstorm

BLM
White SJWS
Mexican illegals
Feminists
Muslims
Wealthy white guilt elites
Environmentalists

The only thing holding these people together right now are them using the average common sense Americans as a scapegoat for America''s problems. Take this away and they'd be at each other's throats. Just take a look at Democrat conventions when these people actually gave to rub elbows with each other. :oldlol:
The Democratic society was a shit show. Don't you remember the DNC? Half the people walked out. Boos in the coronation speech. Hired seat fillers. White noise machines to silence protesters. It was a certified disaster.

[poido123]

This is not a troll thread. I'm genuinely curious.

Everyone has to pick a side.

If you want to set everyone's net worth back to zero in this hypothetical, you can.


Going on long time Democrat states, you have to wonder if a democratic state works at all.


Gee, who would of thought giving handouts and minorities too much lee way would lead to badly run states?


:oldlol:

[bluechox2]

neither, as much of a division that may exist , both sides have a symbiotic relationship...dont let media, far left right extremists fool you,

[UK2K]

Who would pay for free shit then?

It's over now. Once you start handing out free shit, it's going to be expected forever and ever. That's how the Democrat controls minorities, they own them because they're dependent on the government for survival.

If the country splits, that's half as much tax revnue. Good luck handing out rim money then.

[GimmeThat]

the dollar value only holds, because democrats work for republicans that can't be seen, and possibility that most republicans don't ever see the outside world.

to prove it, simply imagine republicans working for democrats that can't be seen, and we may declare the voting system as bankrupt


edit: unfortunately, unless one were to declare a new country, we ought to assume that the value of the nation (which is only one rule book to go by) holds still

[MintBerryCrunch]

The Democrats would be better for a while, but the Republicans would get jealous of the Democrats resources and invade by force, which the Democrats would be too weak to stop.

[Dresta]

Today's Democrats would destroy civilisation in a decade without anyone restraining their insanity. Even if they didn't, they'd be incapable of defending themselves, because Democrats tend not to join the armed forces (well, except for minorities--that'd be a sight to see: a bunch of pampered and entitled middle class liberals being defended by an army of minority groups). I could see Deuce ending up dead in a labour camp.

[UK2K]

The Democrats would be better for a while, but the Republicans would get jealous of the Democrats resources and invade by force, which the Democrats would be too weak to stop.

Cool theory...

Except right now, the complete opposite is happening. There's not a whole lot of Republicans breaking down the doors to get into Democrat led states, or cities. But, the opposite is true. Weird, huh?

Maybe in your fairy tale world, for some reason, the complete opposite takes place?

[MintBerryCrunch]

Cool theory...

Except right now, the complete opposite is happening. There's not a whole lot of Republicans breaking down the doors to get into Democrat led states, or cities. But, the opposite is true. Weird, huh?

Maybe in your fairy tale world, for some reason, the complete opposite takes place?
I'm not sure what you are referring to. Democrats are breaking down doors to get into Republican led states?

[UK2K]

I'm not sure what you are referring to. Democrats are breaking down doors to get into Republican led states?

Yes.

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/census/2010-census-state-migration-statistics.html

Blacks want to move into the white areas. Hispanics jumping the border. Liberal whites want to move to the gentrified parts of the city. You don't see mass Republican migration unless its for jobs, ironically.

So not sure what you base your theory of 'Republicans would invade'. Lol who the **** wants to invade the third world?

[MintBerryCrunch]

Yes.

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/census/2010-census-state-migration-statistics.html

Blacks want to move into the white areas. Hispanics jumping the border. Liberal whites want to move to the gentrified parts of the city. You don't see mass Republican migration unless its for jobs, ironically.

So not sure what you base your theory of 'Republicans would invade'. Lol who the **** wants to invade the third world?
I mean invade as in go to war, as Republicans have often done, such as with each of the last 2 Bush eras. Even if the Democrats did have a worse country, the Republicans would still attack for their resources, just like they did in the Middle East.

[UK2K]

I mean invade as in go to war, as Republicans have often done, such as with each of the last 2 Bush eras. Even if the Democrats did have a worse country, the Republicans would still attack for their resources, just like they did in the Middle East.

Depends who gets what...

Are we talking an E/W split? Or a N/S split?

Cause without Texas, the Democrats are ****ed if they plan on using straight green energy for power. We've got coal, oil, etc...

[Hawker]

I mean invade as in go to war, as Republicans have often done, such as with each of the last 2 Bush eras. Even if the Democrats did have a worse country, the Republicans would still attack for their resources, just like they did in the Middle East.

Didn't Hillary vote for the war in Iraq and was in favor of libya?

[MintBerryCrunch]

Didn't Hillary vote for the war in Iraq and was in favor of libya?
Yeah, but most liberals don't seem to even like Hillary. I think she was voted in by most because of viewing her as the best chance to win the election, and some because they want to see a woman president. I certainly don't like her. I think if there is any defense for her voting for the war in Iraq, it was that we were provided false info from the Bush administration about WMDs.

[KyrieTheFuture]

Pointless exercise, both sides would be absolutely ****ed if we split and it's adorable people want to pretend otherwise. Y'all need eachother whether you like it or not.

[UK2K]

Pointless exercise, both sides would be absolutely ****ed if we split and it's adorable people want to pretend otherwise. Y'all need eachother whether you like it or not.

For what exactly...?

[Dresta]

Pointless exercise, both sides would be absolutely ****ed if we split and it's adorable people want to pretend otherwise. Y'all need eachother whether you like it or not.
Well, that depends where you draw the line. America flourished just fine when there was probably about 1% of the population as radical as the modern Democrat Party.

Now obviously a country dominated by uneducated bible thumpers would struggle, but people seem to forget that Puritan New England was one of the (if not the) most highly educated places in the world (that is, the common level, not the elites).

But of course you need radicals and conservatives in all societies, the former to prevent ossification, and the latter to affirm the traditions and values which underwrite our civilisation. But honestly, I think America would be far better off without either Democrats or Republicans: the country is in desperate need of new and more sensible parties (and money and politics need to be separated as much as possible), because the existent ones have become caricatures of themselves, and yet agree on almost every actually important issue (as all the prominent Repubs who are going for Hilary are demonstrating).

[AceManIII]

Democrats would let poor minorities f*** them over.

Republicans would close themselves off in ignorance and die a slow death.

So I say Republicans

[MintBerryCrunch]

Well, that depends where you draw the line. White America flourished just fine when there was probably about 1% of the population as radical as the modern Democrat Party.
Fixed

[longtime lurker]

Republicans are the most delusional people in America. If it wasn't for the federal government most Republican states would be the equivalent of third world countries. With no minorities who would Republicans blame for their insecurities? No wonder your party is about to be shut out of the white house for two decades :lol

[Akrazotile]

Republicans are the most delusional people in America. If it wasn't for the federal government most Republican states would be the equivalent of third world countries. With no minorities who would Republicans blame for their insecurities? No wonder your party is about to be shut out of the white house for two decades :lol


https://s3.postimg.io/9tnud906b/EVERI_Ultra_Mega_Meltdown_Artwork.jpg

[SpecialQue]

Who would pay for free shit then?

It's over now. Once you start handing out free shit, it's going to be expected forever and ever.

Here ya go, buddy.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/01/15/7-biggest-deadbeat-states-federal-tax-dollars-voted-republican.html

[Akrazotile]

Here ya go, buddy.

https://s3.postimg.io/3y8e58omr/tax_foundation_map.jpg



Lettuce call it what it is.


http://www.censusscope.org/us/map_nhblack.gif
http://media.web.britannica.com/eb-media/37/6137-004-FA51B6B6.gif


The states receiving the most federal aid also have the highest populations of black folks and indian reservations.

That's why they get so much federal aid. Not because they're republican. Because they are places where blacks and native americans are concentrated.


"But but but but but...."

[Hawker]

Lettuce call it what it is.


http://www.censusscope.org/us/map_nhblack.gif
http://media.web.britannica.com/eb-media/37/6137-004-FA51B6B6.gif


The states receiving the most federal aid also have the highest populations of black folks and indian reservations.

That's why they get so much federal aid. Not because they're republican. Because they are places where blacks and native americans are concentrated.


"But but but but but...."

Most of the libs on ISH have never been outside of their New England/Cali bubble so I'm not surprised they aren't aware of this at all.

[G-train]

There would be a war, and the Right would prevail.

[Cleverness]

Lettuce call it what it is.

The states receiving the most federal aid also have the highest populations of black folks and indian reservations.

That's why they get so much federal aid. Not because they're republican. Because they are places where blacks and native americans are concentrated.


"But but but but but...."


yep

that website had so much wrong, and i expected specialque to be smart enough to interpret those misleading statements.:facepalm

first off, "federal aid as a percentage of state general revenue" is horrible to to use as a measurement of which political party "Mooches Off Taxpayers" more

second, if

Red State X: 52% republican, 47% democrat. if all 47% democrats are on welfare, and 0% republican are on aid, then I wouldn't conclude that republican = more welfare, even though it is considered a "red state". they simply have a high percentage of blacks, like Akrazotile pointed out, who are on aid.

Red State doesn't mean 100% republican, but democrats can't seem to wrap their head around that simple concept (or they choose to block out logic from their brain)



third,

http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2012/09/pm-repsndems/gr-pm-repsndems-462.gif





simple google search will show you that a low income person is 2x as likely to be a Democrat than a Republican.

[Dresta]

Republicans are the most delusional people in America. If it wasn't for the federal government most Republican states would be the equivalent of third world countries. With no minorities who would Republicans blame for their insecurities? No wonder your party is about to be shut out of the white house for two decades :lol
Yeah, because they're filled with uneducated and bigoted black people like yourself. low iq, low income, no daddy, extremely high levels of criminal violence, etc. etc.

Keep blaming whitey doe :lol

[UK2K]

Here ya go, buddy.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/01/15/7-biggest-deadbeat-states-federal-tax-dollars-voted-republican.html

Whats that have to do with who pays INTO the welfare system?

Nothing, obviously, but you were so desperate to make a counterpoint you didn't even address what I said.

Well done.

[D-Wade316]

yep

that website had so much wrong, and i expected specialque to be smart enough to interpret those misleading statements.:facepalm

first off, "federal aid as a percentage of state general revenue" is horrible to to use as a measurement of which political party "Mooches Off Taxpayers" more

second, if

Red State X: 52% republican, 47% democrat. if all 47% democrats are on welfare, and 0% republican are on aid, then I wouldn't conclude that republican = more welfare, even though it is considered a "red state". they simply have a high percentage of blacks, like Akrazotile pointed out, who are on aid.

Red State doesn't mean 100% republican, but democrats can't seem to wrap their head around that simple concept (or they choose to block out logic from their brain)



third,

http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2012/09/pm-repsndems/gr-pm-repsndems-462.gif





simple google search will show you that a low income person is 2x as likely to be a Democrat than a Republican.
And middle and high income people also vote democrat. :lol :facepalm