Opinion If the United States was divided into 2 countries: 1 democratic and 1 Republican

[Philo-Publius]

Which would you want to live in and why?

What do you think each country would look like?
What would be the pros and cons of each, in your opinion?

Obviously the one that isn't Communist. Communism = slavery.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

Sure, but you cant eat tech.

Apparently you don't understand how much technology and science has gone into making American agriculture successful.

 

[bobStash]

Apparently you don't understand how much technology and science has gone into making American agriculture successful.

Most ag companies and big iron vendors are headquartered in repub states.

 

[panamaican]

The republican side would be a melting pot much like today’s party demographics despite what MSM says.

you wouldn’t have criminals, doors would be unlocked, people would help one another, no government welfare would be needed. People would take care of themselves.

there would be only a few celebrities, those who relate to their fellow man. Farmers would thrive and there would be surplus of food and drink.

Just think about the Democrat side with the huge economic disparity. Millionaire athletes and entertainers and Silicon Valley CEO’s combined with hipsters, gangsters, drug dealers, homeless and government union workers

That doesn't align at all with what the 2 parties believe or do.

In the Republican state (Republica), there would be massive wealth inequality precisely because there would few taxes and more unregulated capitalism. This would lead to a consolidation of wealth. There would no welfare and no one would be helping one another. They would apply the "bootstraps" mantra to each other. The poor would be happier because they would say "I just need better bootstraps." or some such claptrap. The well-to-do would be just fine.

In the Democratic state (Democratia), taxes would be significant but there would be a social safety net. They would outsource their work to the Republican poor because there would be no minimum wage in Republican land. Then they'd pay 50+% in taxes and exercise rent control and food stamps. The state would be less "content" because they'd constantly tinker with trying to make it "better". In the long run, they'd be the more prosperous state though.

See, poor Republican citizens would emigrate to Democratia for the safety net protections. This increased population means more people and more people means greater chances to discover the next great thing (people are a resource, something we often forget). These innovations would increase revenue, prosperity and standard of living across the state. However, some percentage of the wealthy Democratians would move to Republica to shelter their wealth from taxes. They would economically take advantage of the poor and solidify their political position. The state wouldn't be prosperous but there would be lots of prosperous people at the top of the food chain.

 

[Post 2 Decision]

It's amazing how the quality of life is much higher in 'leftist' nations huh

 

[4daLuLZ]

The republican side would be a melting pot much like today’s party demographics despite what MSM says.

you wouldn’t have criminals, doors would be unlocked, people would help one another, no government welfare would be needed. People would take care of themselves.

there would be only a few celebrities, those who relate to their fellow man. Farmers would thrive and there would be surplus of food and drink.

You forgot to add rainbows shooting out of everyone’s ass and Jesus Christ himself doing a 6 month residency every year in Texas.

 

[BIKES!]

That doesn't align at all with what the 2 parties believe or do.

In the Republican state (Republica), there would be massive wealth inequality precisely because there would few taxes and more unregulated capitalism. This would lead to a consolidation of wealth. There would no welfare and no one would be helping one another. They would apply the "bootstraps" mantra to each other. The poor would be happier because they would say "I just need better bootstraps." or some such claptrap. The well-to-do would be just fine.

In the Democratic state (Democratia), taxes would be significant but there would be a social safety net. They would outsource their work to the Republican poor because there would be no minimum wage in Republican land. Then they'd pay 50+% in taxes and exercise rent control and food stamps. The state would be less "content" because they'd constantly tinker with trying to make it "better". In the long run, they'd be the more prosperous state though.

See, poor Republican citizens would emigrate to Democratia for the safety net protections. This increased population means more people and more people means greater chances to discover the next great thing (people are a resource, something we often forget). These innovations would increase revenue, prosperity and standard of living across the state. However, some percentage of the wealthy Democratians would move to Republica to shelter their wealth from taxes. They would economically take advantage of the poor and solidify their political position. The state wouldn't be prosperous but there would be lots of prosperous people at the top of the food chain.

In many Republican areas government safety nets are not needed because the people take care of one another. Often it is through the church (that's a different story). Walk through Nebraska or any big red state and the doors aren't even locked.

Big Blue Metropolitan areas are often riddled with homeless and transients and dire economic disparity. The difference between a rich Democrat and rich Republican is that the Democrat needs the government to order them to help out the poor. You can see this in the fact that Golf (conservative dominated) contributes more to charity than all other sports combined.

 

[4daLuLZ]

Damn, no criminals on the Republican side? Quite the utopia you people think the Democrats are keeping you from having <45>

"Criminals" is code for people of colour, especially black, in that there post.
Upgrade your Sherdog-WR language skills, brah.

I can’t keep translating all these dog whistles for you all day.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

how would the democratic country pay for their handouts? this is a no brainer, i'd choose to live in the free country...

The same way we pay for all the red states now. Our taxes go to support horribly run red states.

It’s so funny you people just keep repeating the same debunked talking points over and over

 

[panamaican]

In many Republican areas government safety nets are not needed because the people take care of one another. Often it is through the church (that's a different story). Walk through Nebraska or any big red state and the doors aren't even locked.

Big Blue Metropolitan areas are often riddled with homeless and transients and dire economic disparity. The difference between a rich Democrat and rich Republican is that the Democrat needs the government to order them to help out the poor. You can see this in the fact that Golf (conservative dominated) contributes more to charity than all other sports combined.

Yeah, no. Nebraska is right in the middle of the rankings for crime., economy, heathcare.

But more importantly, it's a farm state and gets lots of farm subsidies from the government.

If you want an example of a state that doesn't rely on the government, you pretty much have to exclude all of the farm states, red or blue.

 

[BForrester]

I hate both sides but objectively, the Republican side would be a lot better. Democrats for the most part are insane and they have absolute contempt for the Constitution and peoples rights.

Each side cherry picks the rights they wish to defend and which they wish to infringe upon. It was the conservatives in the 50's through 70's that wanted to censor speech they found offensive and political beliefs in the name of fighting communism. They haven't been historically keen on women's and minority rights, either. The Right also had a big hand in the surveillance of American citizens after 9/11.

But if you're a white male, who cares about that, right?

 

[Stoic1]

Are you sure you want to go full boogaloo?

 

[4daLuLZ]

Who would the southern states borrow all their money from?

Money ?
My dear fellow, you don’t have to pay slaves anything.




On an unrelated but interesting note, when the traitors in the Confederate South ran out of money, who did they try to go running to with their hats in hand ?

Why the glorious old United Kingdom, of course ! Fuck the only 70-80 years ago they owned your ass and you had to fight a war to break free.
Please give me some money so I can kill my brother and rebel against my own duly elected government and neighbours because I hate everyone who doesn’t look like me.

 

[4daLuLZ]

the problem with a Democrat run country is that they’d tax the ‘working class’ out of existence and piss away all their money on endless social programs and ‘projects’ that go no where only to turn around and demand more money in taxes.

Best countries to live in, in the world ......Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Canada.

 

[4daLuLZ]

This. Has there ever been any one party state in modern history that wasn’t a hellhole?

Singapore.

 

[Andy Capp]

It would certainly change the demographics. The majority of black Americans would need to move to a blue state and the small business owners and employers that prop up blue state economies would need to move to a red state.

It would certainly change things....

This is a pretty dumb statement, even for you, not to mention the overtly racist black people are what's wrong with America sentiment.

 

[Jesus H. Sherdog]

Singapore.

Singapore is a parliamentary democratic republic. There are many political parties in Singapore. I’m aware that there is one party that has had overwhelming support for a very long time now, but that is through the popular vote.

I would consider a one party state to be like the Cuba or North Korea where there is only one political party allowed to form the government and political opposition is outlawed.

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

Best 3rd world countries to live in, in the world ......Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Canada.

I don’t concern myself with poverty nations.

 

[Not A Theist]

That doesn't align at all with what the 2 parties believe or do.

In the Republican state (Republica), there would be massive wealth inequality precisely because there would few taxes and more unregulated capitalism. This would lead to a consolidation of wealth. There would no welfare and no one would be helping one another. They would apply the "bootstraps" mantra to each other. The poor would be happier because they would say "I just need better bootstraps." or some such claptrap. The well-to-do would be just fine.

In the Democratic state (Democratia), taxes would be significant but there would be a social safety net. They would outsource their work to the Republican poor because there would be no minimum wage in Republican land. Then they'd pay 50+% in taxes and exercise rent control and food stamps. The state would be less "content" because they'd constantly tinker with trying to make it "better". In the long run, they'd be the more prosperous state though.

See, poor Republican citizens would emigrate to Democratia for the safety net protections. This increased population means more people and more people means greater chances to discover the next great thing (people are a resource, something we often forget). These innovations would increase revenue, prosperity and standard of living across the state. However, some percentage of the wealthy Democratians would move to Republica to shelter their wealth from taxes. They would economically take advantage of the poor and solidify their political position. The state wouldn't be prosperous but there would be lots of prosperous people at the top of the food chain.

Hrm... I was following you up until the migration of people bit. Seeing a huge portion of the developed world has more significant social safety nets (on average) than the US, and is more concerned with leveling out wealth inequality, shouldn't we be seeing this type of exodus from the U.S. to other countries? I mean, maybe I'm missing something as I don't exactly study migration of people, but I don't think we do. Isn't the U.S. one of the most desired locations for emigration in the world? Even between my home of Canada and the US, we have a much more notable safety net, universal healthcare, etc etc, and we significantly more to the US than we gain - and that's including 2016 when calls of "well leave for Canada!" were rampant.

Also, are you sure you're a Republican? I mean, you seem to hold their governing philosophy in a fair bit of disdain. I get that, personally, but I was under the impression you were a Republican.

 

[2gps125]

Someone tell me all the great industries in Bubba Land - other than Rednecks in the military?