Opinion Red States and Blue States Are Becoming Different Countries - Americans are often taught to think of the differences between Republicans and Democrats as a set of reasonable disagreements over how to tackle agreed-upon problems.

It seems obvious to say, but if you want a real sense of the differences between America’s two major parties — and if you want a sense of what the future could bring if either party wins full control of the federal government next year — all you have to do is look at the states.

Where Republicans have gained this kind of full control over state legislatures and statehouses, they have used that authority in pursuit of policies meant to curtail the ability of people in their states to live as they please.

You know what this looks like. It’s the “anti-woke” policymaking of Gov. Ron DeSantis’s Florida, from laws that stigmatize L.G.B.T.Q. students and teachers in public school classrooms to an assault on higher education that has driven professors out of state. “What we are witnessing in Florida is an intellectual reign of terror,” LeRoy Pernell, a law professor at Florida A&M University, said in an interview with a special committee of the American Association of University Professors.

It’s not just Florida, of course. Republican trifectas in states across the country have introduced and passed dozens of bills aimed at the public existence of trans and other gender-nonconforming people. Republicans in Oklahoma banned the use of nonbinary gender identifiers on birth certificates; Republicans in Tennessee, similarly, banned trans people from changing their gender on their birth certificates. Republicans in Arkansas and Alabama have passed laws that ban gender-affirming care for young trans people, and Republicans in Texas have gone as far as to say that under state law, gender-affirming care can legally constitute child abuse.

There is also the issue of abortion. In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade, a number of Republican-led states pushed and passed stringent policies to restrict the bodily autonomy of women and other residents. New abortion restrictions in Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas — to name just a few states — have left millions of American women without access to abortion services, even in the face of life-threatening complications. Republicans in Texas, in fact, waged and won a legal battle against Kate Cox, a 31-year-old woman who sought to terminate her essentially nonviable pregnancy or face potentially deadly complications. This week, she left the state to receive care. Or put another way, Texas decided that Cox’s life was not threatened enough to relent.

The state-level Republican agenda also includes efforts to restrict voting or gerrymander political opponents out of representation. Taken all together, you could say that Republicans are engaged in a comprehensive effort to limit the freedom of entire categories of people.

Compare this with the legislation passed in states that after the 2022 elections became Democratic trifectas.

Late last month, Michigan Democrats overhauled the state’s election laws, with a set of bills designed to increase access to the polls. Most groundbreaking is a bill that would automatically register incarcerated people upon release from prison, unless they opt out. Other measures include a bill to allow 16-year-olds to preregister to vote ahead of their 18th birthdays and a bill to strengthen penalties for intimidating or harassing election workers.

The package, signed into law by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, is the latest in a barrage of legislation that’s been passed in the year since Michigan Democrats won control of all three elected branches for the first time since the 1980s. Within months of the start of the new legislative session, Whitmer had already signed laws to increase the state earned-income tax credit, expand anti-discrimination protections for sexual and gender identity, repeal the state’s right-to-work law — which hindered the ability of unions to organize — and repeal a 1931 statute criminalizing abortion care.

And Michigan Democrats aren’t alone in their pursuit of policies to benefit the broad swath of residents under their charge. Upon winning their trifecta in 2022, Minnesota Democrats — led by Gov. Tim Walz — embarked on a similar effort to make life better for most people in the state. In the face of largely united Republican opposition, Minnesota Democrats mandated paid family and medical leave, barred employers from holding anti-union captive audience meetings, strengthened workplace protections in warehouses and meatpacking plants, curtailed wage theft and gave free breakfast and lunch to all children in Minnesota public schools.
Maryland Democrats, for their part, have used their new trifecta to speed up the state’s transition to a $15-per-hour minimum wage, expand tax credits for low-income residents, limit where people can carry firearms in public places and protect abortion rights.

One final observation: Over the long term, state policies have a measurable impact on life expectancy. Writing for The American Prospect, Paul Starr summarizes the results of a 2020 paper looking at the disparity in life expectancy between the most liberal states and the most conservative states, singling out Connecticut and Oklahoma as two states where policies shifted the most, either to the left or to the right. “Their model,” Starr writes, “indicated that if all states’ policies were the same as Connecticut’s in 2014, U.S. life expectancy would have been two years longer for women and 1.3 years longer for men — and if all states’ policies were like Oklahoma’s, Americans’ lives would have been shorter.”

Americans are often taught to think of the differences between Republicans and Democrats as a set of reasonable disagreements over how to tackle agreed-upon problems. But what we can see, in the divergent agendas of Republican-led states and Democrat-led states, is how the differences have far more to do with the actual purpose of government. For Democrats, that purpose is usually the public good. For Republicans, that purpose is harsh social regulation, with little apparent regard for the lives of those who have to endure these policies.

Article Link

Archive
 
"Democrats want good things, like dissolving white people's political autonomy via mass immigration, endless war, streets full of feces, paranoid mask orders, and internet censorship. Meanwhile, Republicans want mean things, like not letting child sex traffickers have unfettered access to the border and not letting pedophiles cross-dress and use the ladies' room."
 
I love how they rag on the Republicans for “restricting freedoms” while failing to mention Michigan’s attempts to create hate speech laws where people can be prosecuted just because someone “felt threatened”.
 
Typical modern NYT article. The headline makes it sound like something different, maybe even neutral.. but surprise.


Living in a modern city is probably one of the worst things you can do for your mental health. They all seem to turn into hives of bugmen that start to lose touch with what "normal" really is as everyone else around them has become some distortion of man. So they begin this massive cope with how great city life is with all the "worldly culture" and massive selection of international foods and cheeses while looking down on red states full of small towns that don't have local access to these things or much convenience but in turn don't have to deal with people getting raped and shot by the dozens every day, have cleaner air, decent cheese and over all a better quality of life.

Indeed. At least in western cities and societies. Sociopathy scores and mental illness rates are much much higher in cities. Same with crime and all other sorts of ills. DC is the worst of all in terms of sociopath scores. (probably a lot to do with politicians scoring really high on it already)
 
Última edición:
It's called federalism, dipshits. Flyover countries are coequal states in this Union, not colonial possessions of the Coasts.
The states were their own countries prior to the conclusion of the American Civil War.
Not true. That was the state of affairs under the Articles of Confederation, in which the "United States" wasn't much different from something like the EU. The Supremacy Clause of our current Constitution states that federal law trumps state law, should the two conflict.
 
Última edición:
It's called federalism, dipshits. Flyover countries are coequal states in this Union, not colonial possessions of the Coasts.

Not true. That was the state of affairs under the Articles of Confederation, in which the "United States" wasn't much different from something like the EU. The Supremacy Clause of our current Constitution states that federal law trumps state law, should the two conflict.
Agreed, the US hasn't exactly been a collection of little countries since 1793.
 
Yes, let's look at what state policies passed in super-Democratic states look like!

Oooh, we could always use Oregon, where all drugs are decriminalized and police will no longer respond even to calls about arson and violent crime because they've been too defunded.

Oh, maybe we could try California, where every foster family now must agree to have their foster children chemically or surgically castrated if the gender doctor (whose money is made by chemically and surgically castrating patients) decrees it necessary.

How about New York, where cashless bail ensures that the craziest, most violent criminals are freed to terrorize more taxpayers faster than ever before?
 
The main problem with Republican/conservative lawmaking is that it assumes that you can take the mentally ill and the born degenerate and bitchslap them into flying right, and when they don't you simply bitchslap them LOUDER. Some people are just irredeemable. The libtard states let people live as they want and say that bad people just need to be hugged more, and then you get urban Califagnia where the streets are lined with zonked out fent addicts, their needles, and their feces, and everybody else has either fled long ago or goes around surrounded by a dozen bodyguards. Murika today is a place where the cities have sunk into ultrapermissivity and the countryside is desperately trying to hold the tide of destruction at bay with pump shotguns and bolt action rifles. Like Abe Lincoln said, a house divided against itself cannot stand, it eventually becomes all one or all the other. Abe realized that northern states would never re-legalize slavery, and the north was where the population was, so the only choice was war. Today it's either the countryside wins and sanity returns, or the grass grows in the streets of every city in the country.
 
Faggots just angry that people in Red States don't have to suck tranny cock. It's nice to see Republicans do something worthwhile, rare as it is.
Isn't there some kind of happy medium between throwing sodomites off of tall buildings because "they hurt Jesus's feelings," and state mandated homosexuality because "heterosexuality is a prison" or whatever?

But no, it's the conservatives who are "weird about sex" because they aren't obsessed with rampant buttfucking 24/7.
I love how they rag on the Republicans for “restricting freedoms” while failing to mention Michigan’s attempts to create hate speech laws where people can be prosecuted just because someone “felt threatened”.
I didn't hear about this, then again I don't live in Michigan but their state government sounds like they never made it past kindergarten, mentally at least.
 
Última edición:
I love how they rag on the Republicans for “restricting freedoms” while failing to mention Michigan’s attempts to create hate speech laws where people can be prosecuted just because someone “felt threatened”.

And of course gutting the Second Amendment and stripping people of their right to mount an armed defense against a tyrannical federal government wouldn't be considered "restricting freedom" in their eyes, despite being in the Bill of Rights and clearly stating "shall not be infringed".
 
Isn't there some kind of happy medium between throwing sodomites off of tall buildings because "they hurt Jesus's feelings," and state mandated homosexuality because "heterosexuality is a prison" or whatever?

But no, it's the conservatives who are "weird about sex" because they aren't obsessed with rampant buttfucking 24/7.

I didn't hear about this, then again I don't live in Michigan but their state government sounds like they never made it past kindergarten, mentally at least.
We should kill faggots, just not for hurting Jesus feelings, but for simply being a detrimental plague on humanity.
 
Isn't there some kind of happy medium between throwing sodomites off of tall buildings because "they hurt Jesus's feelings," and state mandated homosexuality because "heterosexuality is a prison" or whatever?

But no, it's the conservatives who are "weird about sex" because they aren't obsessed with rampant buttfucking 24/7.

I didn't hear about this, then again I don't live in Michigan but their state government sounds like they never made it past kindergarten, mentally at least.
 
There is a plan to cut the country into three different banking regions being floated around for the past year or two. The idea is that California would enact new banking laws that would make major banks responsible for the carbon footprints of every single one of their customers, New York / Wall Street does not like this plan and would per-sue their own system, and finally, the niddle of the country would figure out some type of agriculture centric banks.

It is very difficult to tell what the actual outcome will be
 
We should kill faggots, just not for hurting Jesus feelings, but for simply being a detrimental plague on humanity.
My only complaint is when they want to drag in people who are obviously not interested in being a part of their...activities. I do get it though.
 
There is a plan to cut the country into three different banking regions being floated around for the past year or two. The idea is that California would enact new banking laws that would make major banks responsible for the carbon footprints of every single one of their customers, New York / Wall Street does not like this plan and would per-sue their own system, and finally, the niddle of the country would figure out some type of agriculture centric banks.

It is very difficult to tell what the actual outcome will be

Might as well just Balkanize the whole country then. And of course California would feel they have the authority to push something like that on other states. Commiefornia can fuck right off and sink into the Pacific, and New York can do likewise into the Atlantic. The country would be a helluva lot better off without them.
 
Isn't there some kind of happy medium between throwing sodomites off of tall buildings because "they hurt Jesus's feelings," and state mandated homosexuality because "heterosexuality is a prison" or whatever?
I would say don't ask don't tell era around the 90s was about as good as it was going to get. Paraphrasing another post it was still a somewhat fringe subculture/sexuality but people weren't being knifed in the streets for being gay with public support. It isn't the magical unicorn the LGB wanted, but of course it got all fucked up once gay marriage made buttfucking a national issue and put everyone's eyes on it (and don't only 10 percent of gays or so get married any how?) and soon after the LGB had TIAP2S+ tacked on it

now the cats out of the bag and I'm afraid once we recover from the hangover on all this gender sexuality stuff regular gays and lesbos are going to rue the day they didn't nip trannies in the bud. It is a shame but a lot of innocent people will be caught in the backlash of what's been wrought in this country over the last decade .
 
There is a plan to cut the country into three different banking regions being floated around for the past year or two. The idea is that California would enact new banking laws that would make major banks responsible for the carbon footprints of every single one of their customers, New York / Wall Street does not like this plan and would per-sue their own system, and finally, the niddle of the country would figure out some type of agriculture centric banks.

It is very difficult to tell what the actual outcome will be

In theory, only Congress has the right to regulate interstate trade, but we all know how little Congress gives a shit about anything except printing off billions for proxy wars.
 
It's better that way. Redden the red states and let the blue crumble, and secure state borders, require a clean voting record for any fleeing the sinking states. That's it.

We'd be half a 3rd world country, but that's better than the alternative.
The bigger issue is that while the red states are subconsciously fine with letting the leftist states rot the blue states will never tolerate the same. It's really hard to sell starvation as the new norm when your neighbors across the river are eating well.
In theory, only Congress has the right to regulate interstate trade, but we all know how little Congress gives a shit about anything except printing off billions for proxy wars.
If you could print yourself infinite money by proxy with zero consequences you'd do the exact same thing.
 
If you could print yourself infinite money by proxy with zero consequences you'd do the exact same thing.
Don't know about anybody else, but I wouldn't. Namely because there's no way to do that without "zero consequences".

And believing that there's no consequences to that behavior is indicative of extremely shitty long-term planning as well as critical thinking.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo