Biggest Danger To Republican Party Is The Liberal Cancer Spreading To Red States

[Darryl]

The libs are fleeing the unlivable cities and states they created with their idiotic policies they created, and are moving to red states. Then the clowns will vote the exact same way they did before which will morph red states like Florida, Texas, Georgia etc into crap holes.

Darryl

[ukpumacat]

I have posted before how this is just statically and factually untrue.
And it’s even less true in Georgia. That state is not turning because liberals from California and New York are moving there.
Far far more people move to California each year from red states than Californian’s moving to those 3 states. And it’s not even close.
Texas is turning purple because young people and minorities are a growing dem constituency.
Either the Republican Party will begin to grow their numbers with those groups or more states will continue to turn purple.

[catmanjack]

The real problem is the Democratic policy is being taught in high school and college.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

The real problem is the Democratic policy is being taught in high school and college.

It's actually taught way before that.

I learned at the earliest age, things like the golden rule, we are all created equal, love thy neighbor. Sung songs like "red, yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight". Sharing is caring. Ideas like no matter how hard you may feel that you have it or seeing that others have things you do not, that somebody else always has it worse off than you do.

Things that I learned in my high school years were things like segregated organizations, "the south will rise again", "greed is good", "welfare queens" are the problem with society, big government is bad. I can go on and on.

I chose to focus on the former, which are the true ideals of the Democratic Party.

[bigsky]

It is true here. The places californicators are moving, Bozeman and Missoula, are deep blue.

[Darryl]

Link

https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/georgia-a-top-growth-state-in-2019-u-haul-says

Darryl

[bigsky]

Can I drive by in early Jan and vote? Like a dead person on Philly?

[ukpumacat]

It is true here. The places californicators are moving, Bozeman and Missoula, are deep blue.

I am not saying it doesn't exist anywhere. And I have no doubt it affects some smaller states or towns to some degree. It just has virtually no impact on the three states mentioned above (or any other large state). It is something that gets talked about a lot anecdotally. But the numbers just simply do not back it up. Like I said, far more people from red states move to California a year than to those states mentioned above.

As I posted in another thread, Biden won this election by flipping some very large suburbs. Trump actually made small gains in almost every single large (dem)/urban cities. Philadelphia. Miami. Chicago. Etc.
He lost this election in the suburbs.
If/when Republican analysts begin to dissect these numbers (as opposed to falsely claiming fraud) they will see the very same thing. After every election I spend a decent amount of time going through and seeing changes in areas of the country.
Biden banked on the fact he could still win the big cities by the same amount most Dem candidates have (and he came close) but that he would ultimately win this race by making small gains in some large suburbs: Virginia Beach, Ft. Worth, Phoenix, Henderson, etc. He did and flipped several of them to blue (even though they have local Republican legislatures, etc). That won him the race.

[bigsky]

Also, Boise is becoming a blue island as Cali and Portland take over. Not yet, but soon. Like Bozeman and Missoula, it is a college and tech town.

[ukpumacat]

Link

https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/georgia-a-top-growth-state-in-2019-u-haul-says

Darryl

The question isn't whether people are moving to other states. The question is are enough people moving from California or New York to turn those states blue. And the answer is flat no.

The top states people moved from to Georgia:

1. Florida (doubling every other state)
2. Texas
3. New York
4. Tennessee
5. North Carolina
6. Alabama
7. California

This order is slightly different depending on the year. But the point is that way more are moving to Georgia from red states than from blue states.

When you are

[ukpumacat]

Also, Boise is becoming a blue island as Cali and Portland take over. Not yet, but soon. Like Bozeman and Missoula, it is a college and tech town.

This right here is a key in many towns. Its not as much about how many people are moving from where....its about what kind of towns they are.

[VirginiaCat]

Northern VA down to and through Richmond has not basically become the Mid-Atlantic thanks to urban sprawl... That is why VA is Blue. Simply put, the STate is Red...2/3 counties are Blue and they are ruining the state for the rest of us. I wish they would break off and become their own state called Northern Socialsits State of Virginia.

[CitizenBBN]

It's actually taught way before that.

I learned at the earliest age, things like the golden rule, we are all created equal, love thy neighbor. Sung songs like "red, yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight". Sharing is caring. Ideas like no matter how hard you may feel that you have it or seeing that others have things you do not, that somebody else always has it worse off than you do.

Things that I learned in my high school years were things like segregated organizations, "the south will rise again", "greed is good", "welfare queens" are the problem with society, big government is bad. I can go on and on.

I chose to focus on the former, which are the true ideals of the Democratic Party.

No, they are not.

We are all created equal, we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among those being the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

You'll notice a real lack of discussion of equality of outcomes, forcible seizure of property to insure the same, and the ends of outcomes justifying the means.

Being created equal doesn't mean we all end up with the same economic outcome no matter what our choices are in life.

The true ideal of the Democratic party is a fundamental lie that we are going to provide great amounts of economic equality and it will all be paid for by some other group that deserves what they get b/c they are greedy and evil. The problem being that group a) is largely the economic support for their elections, and b) even they don't have enough to pay the bills.

So we get to borrow against our grandchildren's future in hopes of spending money today to buy votes to stay in power.

Anyone, anyone who thinks the leaders of either party are interested in any ideal other than staying in power is just naive to the point of being stuck in those nursery rhymes. Both are only interested in their power, and the best we can hope for is that their implementation of their goals is in some way beneficial to the rest of us.

that's not even to get into the fact that nothing is more egalitarian or equal than Libertarianism, which gives each person their liberty and equality under the law. There has yet to be a socialist state ever created that doesnt' just lock the caste system in place.

That's why these rich people support it. B/c it creates the barriers to entry and movement that will insure they are at the top of that food chain for generations. The only nation on Earth that has enjoyed any real social and economic mobility is the United States, which is why immigrants have flocked here for its entire history, but it is being closed off by this unholy alliance of leftist government and big corporations.

We were born as a nation to be the land of equality of opportunity, and we are becoming the guarantor of equality of outcomes. that has nothing to do with real equality, which is a Right of Man which no government should be able to infringe. Equality means equality of rights, not equality of checking accounts.

[CitizenBBN]

This right here is a key in many towns. Its not as much about how many people are moving from where....its about what kind of towns they are.

Conservatives have refused to battle in the two areas the Left has usurped for decades: Academia and the media.

Colleges are to the point of practicing out in the open, vehement discrimination in order to maintain that balance. You can't get hired if you're a conservative, much less teach those classes. The same is true for most of the media.

the fact that they are two groups with little real world business experience isn't a coincidence. Nor is the fact that suburban voters tend to be liberal, where many of them have grown up with relative wealth and comfort and really have little contact with the "poor and downtrodden" they fret over. It's as much guilt for their wealth as it is any particular policy.

But primarily there's simply no way to present an alternative approach to liberalism. I very much want to address poverty, and I have a way to do it that a) would actually work, unlike the 60 years War on Poverty we've had that has left people worse off for generations, and b) wouldn't require we scrap the Declaration of Independence and our founding ideals of liberty to get there.

But no one hears about those approaches, using incentive based economics as opposed to pretending we are all evolved past homo economicus, b/c anyone who dares raise those points outside of a business school on a college campus or in a high school would be tarred and feathered.

Liberalism isn't wrong about things it wants to address, like things you listed. NO one wants dirty rivers or poor people living in the streets. The question is how to address it, and you'd think after trying it the liberal way since the 1960s and we now have more poverty, more homeless, more debt, more illigitmacy and VASTLY more drug use, that we'd look around and try a different approach.

Liberals need to read that definition of insanity again, b/c that's exactly what it has become. The answer of course is that we just haven't taxed and spent and interfered and regulated enough, but if we just go a little farther we'll fix everything.

This nation used to have fine and far more affordable health care until government got involved through medicaid and medicare, and while we had poverty we had nowhere near this level of drug problem.

But we started the War on Poverty, and the War on Drugs, which have combined to become a War on the Poor.

For example, you want to raise the minimum wage. How about we examine what we can do to spur the economy so the wages simply go up as a function of demand? When we artificially raise that wage it will simply displace workers as companies opt to shift capital and labor (automation, etc.) and of course those costs then are also borne by the consumers, which is less money available for other consumer spending or capital investment. It's an artificial tariff, no different than a tariff on imported goods, that shifts economic behavior by force but in the end does absolutely nothing to address the fundamental reasons for implacable poverty: lack of better job opportunities and lack of education. It's a feel good band aid that does nothing to address the fundamentals that would actually get people out of those jobs who have families to support.

but no one even hears about those kinds of solutions, like the Enterprise investment zones of Jack Kemp, which was a weak but at least some attempt to move in the right direction. No one wants to discuss the economics behind health care and how we can use market forces to fix the issue rather than simply have 100% government run care.

And of course no one wants to discuss how any of those plans may be contrary to people's individual liberties. that one NEVER comes up, how maybe I should have a voice in what is taken from my labors and work to give to those who have been grasshoppers while I have been the ant planning for winter.

[ukpumacat]

Conservatives have refused to battle in the two areas the Left has usurped for decades: Academia and the media.

Colleges are to the point of practicing out in the open, vehement discrimination in order to maintain that balance. You can't get hired if you're a conservative, much less teach those classes. The same is true for most of the media.

the fact that they are two groups with little real world business experience isn't a coincidence. Nor is the fact that suburban voters tend to be liberal, where many of them have grown up with relative wealth and comfort and really have little contact with the "poor and downtrodden" they fret over. It's as much guilt for their wealth as it is any particular policy.

But primarily there's simply no way to present an alternative approach to liberalism. I very much want to address poverty, and I have a way to do it that a) would actually work, unlike the 60 years War on Poverty we've had that has left people worse off for generations, and b) wouldn't require we scrap the Declaration of Independence and our founding ideals of liberty to get there.

But no one hears about those approaches, using incentive based economics as opposed to pretending we are all evolved past homo economicus, b/c anyone who dares raise those points outside of a business school on a college campus or in a high school would be tarred and feathered.

Liberalism isn't wrong about things it wants to address, like things you listed. NO one wants dirty rivers or poor people living in the streets. The question is how to address it, and you'd think after trying it the liberal way since the 1960s and we now have more poverty, more homeless, more debt, more illigitmacy and VASTLY more drug use, that we'd look around and try a different approach.

Liberals need to read that definition of insanity again, b/c that's exactly what it has become. The answer of course is that we just haven't taxed and spent and interfered and regulated enough, but if we just go a little farther we'll fix everything.

This nation used to have fine and far more affordable health care until government got involved through medicaid and medicare, and while we had poverty we had nowhere near this level of drug problem.

But we started the War on Poverty, and the War on Drugs, which have combined to become a War on the Poor.

For example, you want to raise the minimum wage. How about we examine what we can do to spur the economy so the wages simply go up as a function of demand? When we artificially raise that wage it will simply displace workers as companies opt to shift capital and labor (automation, etc.) and of course those costs then are also borne by the consumers, which is less money available for other consumer spending or capital investment. It's an artificial tariff, no different than a tariff on imported goods, that shifts economic behavior by force but in the end does absolutely nothing to address the fundamental reasons for implacable poverty: lack of better job opportunities and lack of education. It's a feel good band aid that does nothing to address the fundamentals that would actually get people out of those jobs who have families to support.

but no one even hears about those kinds of solutions, like the Enterprise investment zones of Jack Kemp, which was a weak but at least some attempt to move in the right direction. No one wants to discuss the economics behind health care and how we can use market forces to fix the issue rather than simply have 100% government run care.

And of course no one wants to discuss how any of those plans may be contrary to people's individual liberties. that one NEVER comes up, how maybe I should have a voice in what is taken from my labors and work to give to those who have been grasshoppers while I have been the ant planning for winter.

Chuck, if I can be frank (and I know you agree with this)....people can't even have those debates or discussions anymore.

We now live in a Reality TV Style political environment. And that is not because of Trump. He won in 2016 because he was simply better at it than anyone else.
Our campaigns have been this way for a while. But now, its overtaken every part of politics, notably governing.

Here is the dirty little secret that no one wants to admit: our country isn't nearly divided politically as it seems. And from a distance....we are the most divided we have been since the Civil War. But, we are simply divided in rhetoric.
I would make a huge bet that 80% of our country is somewhere in the middle.
Yes, you have those on the far right and far left.
Think of the Venn diagram. This is the closest I could find to what I mean (just ignore the text haha).
9788

I think the far left is the iPad (blue) and the far right is the iPhone (peach). But that grey area in the middle is the majority of the country. And no doubt that I would be to the far left side of the grey area. And you might be to the right side of the grey area. But, still the grey area (and I realize some on here might be fully in the blue and peach....just not as many as in the grey.

And since we are just coming out of an election cycle...I will use a candidate.

If you had a candidate that was the following:

Socially Liberal - Pro Choice. Pro Gay Marriage.
Fiscally Conservative - Lower Taxes. Balanced Budget.
Moderately Aware - This becomes the biggest sticking point. But, what I mean is that they believe in climate change...but take a balanced approach in dealing with it (the balance of regulations and killing businesses). And gun violence (the balance of certain regulations and the 2nd amendment). And Immigration. Etc etc.

A conservative, would be on the right of most of those issues obviously. A liberal on the left. But the MAJORITY of Americans, are in that gray area. The majority of Americans believe in Climate Change. They just do. So, when a candidate says that its "fake news" or that Science doesn't know....they don't agree with that. But when a candidate wants to kill entire industries over it....they don't agree with that either. Same with guns. Same with immigration. Same with many things.

The problem of course (and again, you know this) is that that candidate I just mentioned above...cannot get out of the primary.

I mean, frankly....Biden and Trump politically speaking are actually both somewhat moderate. Biden is by far the most moderate candidate that Republicans could have hoped for. But its Kamala they are scared of (and the influence others might have on him).
And Trump...politically speaking is somewhat moderate. BUT....he veered hard right and became completely "not moderately aware" (the 3rd group) because he banked on his base to get him elected.

I am talking in large generalities here. But my point is that 80% of Americans are in that Grey area. I am a democrat. I am not really speaking for me when I say this. But, what I am saying is that Republicans could absolutely become the primary party of the future if they would tone down the reality tv rhetoric of category 1 & 3. Because the majority of Americans are with them in Category 2.
I mean, let's be honest....Bill Clinton of 1992 (policy wise) would be a Republican today. But he was pro life and pro gay marriage (sort of) so he would never have made it out of Arkansas as a Republican.

Take just a couple of very very divisive issues -

Abortion - There are obviously some...who will never ever be good with that in any form. But, the majority of the country is in the grey area on this. And do you not think that's where most of the politicians are? Of course it is. They would absolutely put certain restrictions on it. BUT...the rhetoric of the right scares the left to death. Its the whole "foot in the door" thing. "Once their foot is in the door..."
Guns - There are certainly some....who would want to ban all guns from America. But, the majority of the country is in the grey area on this. Meaning, they would be ok to put certain restrictions on it. Some make sense. But, the rhetoric of the left scares the right to death. They are afraid its all just "getting their foot in the door" in order to take them away. So nothing happens.
Immigration - EVERYONE knows this needs to be fixed. Everyone. But, everyone remembers the Gang of 12. It literally ruined several careers. So now, no one will even touch it.
Campaign Finance - This is something Trump and Bernie actually agreed on. And they couldn't even touch it to get it done. Why? Because of rhetoric. Neither would have worked with the other and they could have never gotten it passed anyways. That's insane.

My overall point being:

- Two Party systems suck because frankly neither represent the 80% of American people.
- 80% of Americans are in different parts of the Grey area. But are closer in policy than many people believe. But the Reality TV rhetoric drives them to their corners.
- Governing has now become so political...that the politicians that are actually in the grey area (and there are many) cannot govern that way or they will lose in their next primary (unless in a very grey area state).
- And the rhetoric has caused all of the people in the grey area...to dig in their heels for their political party and have to swallow some things they don't agree fully with for the things they do.

ALL of us are conservative on some things and liberal on others. All of us. And those in the grey areas especially. But, the rhetoric has driven everyone so far apart that those in the blue and peach areas continue to gain more traction. Like, its a real problem that Q-Anon candidates are winning. Seriously. And its a real problem that some of the far left is winning. Seriously.

Maybe none of that makes sense. And I typed so much I already probably don't agree with some of it. But hopefully you can stay out of the weeds on some of the specifics and get my overall point.

[Catonahottinroof]

Ultimately, you have to show how policy, not rhetoric is successful. Both parties play the rhetoric card to the Nth. An abundance of it has been played over COVID. Show me results.......

[ukpumacat]

Ultimately, you have to show how policy, not rhetoric is successful. Both parties play the rhetoric card to the Nth. An abundance of it has been played over COVID. Show me results.......

Results don't seem to get people of either party elected anymore.

[Catonahottinroof]

That is because some voters let political affiliations overcome common sense.
Results don't seem to get people of either party elected anymore.

[dan_bgblue]

North Carolina (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/north-carolina-trump-changing-electorate-battleground-rural-red-urban-blue)