Looking to leave your blue state for a red one???

  • http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-41434644/the-firm-helping-republicans-relocate-to-red-states?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook

    As a CA defector I agree 100% with this guys point of view and think its great he's started something to help others leave their liberal hell holes.

  • Yeah, except the sad part is that many californians leave california for somewhere "better," and then try to turn wherever they end up into california.

  • @orkan said:

    Yeah, except the sad part is that many californians leave california for somewhere "better," and then try to turn wherever they end up into california.

    They sure have fucked up some nice places.

  • @orkan said:

    Yeah, except the sad part is that many californians leave california for somewhere "better," and then try to turn wherever they end up into california.

    Your 100% correct on that. Oregon and Washington are prefect examples.

  • @orkan said:

    Yeah, except the sad part is that many californians leave california for somewhere "better," and then try to turn wherever they end up into california.

    Solid truth right there

  • I am afraid it will eventually turn her in Georgia.
    No telling where we would go if that happens.
    Thankfully we already have State Preemption so the cities can't do their own thing.
    Right now there is a balance of power between rural GA and Metro Atlanta which used to be heavily tilted right.
    Last election some counties went Blue that had been Red my entire life.

  • How's this for a solution?: Stop voting.

    Right now it's only EVER a choice between democrat or democrat lite.

    If there isn't a hardcore conservative on the ticket, don't vote. It will ensure only hardcore dem's get elected. After enough time goes by and those people have destroyed the lives of countless citizens, republicans will start to understand that if they EVER want to hold power again, they will run candidates that have our moral compass installed. No half measures when only a full measure will do.

    It has to get a lot worse before it can ever get better. Doing the above would make it get a lot worse, very quickly.

    What's the alternative? Keep voting for the lesser of two evils? Nothing will change. Nothing is changing. With this asswad administration we have right now, I could just as well have voted hillary.

  • I think we need to focus on state and local elections. Vote in better people and get the shit heads out right away.

  • I think we need to take a hard look at independent candidates that are not beholding to either of the two parties that are doomed to gridlock because of their ideological differences. Democrats are responsible for approximately 48 percent of our population zero tax or getting refunds in excess of what they paid in. Democrats and Republicans are both responsible for the lack of meaningful border enforcement.

    The Republicans on the other hand are responsible for a tax structure that has Warren Buffet paying less taxes in percentage terms than his secretary.

    Both parties have their hidden agendas fueled by lobbying efforts and the direct and indirect political contributions of special interests. I BELIEVE THIS TO BE THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEMS IN OUR COUNTRY.


    Think about it, HOW IS A $10,000 POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION NOT A BRIBE? And we talk about coaches taking kickbacks for funneling players to agents, but its ok for our politicians to essentially do the same thing for their votes on laws..... TELL ME IM WRONG....

  • The election of Trump was not so much about the man but what his platform stood for.
    Steve Bannon authored the MAGA platform and continues to push forward with the essential elements of that platform; drain the swamp, nationalism vs globalism etc. Pay attention to him as he intends to go after all of the RINOs and primary them.
    Recently the RINO faction spent 30 million dollars on their PRIMARY candidate and lost in Alabama. Luther had Trump's verbal backing against Moore and still lost.
    Trump did not lose there as Moore exemplifies the MAGA reality and I believe his endorsement for Luther was .5 hearted at best.
    This is the road to take, primary out the incessant lying sacks of manure and replace them with proven principled candidates.
    Fact is the 2nd amendment would be virtually dead if Clinton had been elected. The newest SCOTUS member would have been an unknown pronoun flaming liberal with an agenda.
    Like Rhino said, get good people in at the local level.
    Pray for this country and get actively involved.

  • Banned


    The patriots just aren't fed up enough. Everyone is "comfortable" with things now. It has to get a whole lot worse to get patriots to the point where civil war is more comfortable than living with the current times. Sure lots of people are fed up with it, but not enough to sacrifice everything they own, everything they are. Hopefully they have the sense to not give up everything before getting to that point.

  • Ir would sure be nice if another civil war was avoided and the train was back on the tracks the founders laid.
    Unfortunately, that is a long shot.


    Dems are too far left
    Reps are too far right and out of touch with the working man.

    Just look at the immigration issue. Over 70% of the US population wanted major improvements to border controls, but our elected officials in congress and the senate did nothing. We had an amnesty program for illegals about twenty years ago and because the politicians couldn't agree on what to do the amnesty went forward and nothing happened on border control.

    Now Trump is tying the two issues together and the Dems are saying that they're being held hostage. Trump wants to stop the practice of foreigners dropping off their kids and getting them educated at taxpayer's expense and the Dems just want to side step the issue and sit on their A$$es.

    I wish we had the power to take their lavish retirement benefits away until they got something done that was acceptable to the people. Frankly if they had fewer benefits, we would probably have fewer career politicians which would likely benefit society greatly.

    Our founding fathers including Geo Washington never envisioned career politicians in congress or the senate, The longer politicians are in office the more power they accumulate and we all know how power tends to corrupt. It was interesting that our congress and the senate voted and approved a law that allowed them to benefit from insider trading until it was made public that our elected officials were getting rich by doing something that was illegal for the rest of us.

    This corrupt system of self-dealing by our elected officials has to stop or we will have another tea party. Our politicians wont call them patriots though, they'll be labeled as extremists or worse.

  • @martino1 Explain to me how republicans are too far right...

  • @martino1 I also would like to here the reply to Greg's question. Maybe also explain what you would consider a conservative.

  • @orkan

    Republicans have championed the free market system and that interference by govt is bad. A classic case the free market going amuck is health care providers being allowed to charge those without health insurance up to 10 times or more what insurance would reimburse for the same procedure. This would be illegal in any other industry but health care.

    Insane health care costs are the leading motivation for bankruptcy here in the US because of ridiculous health care pricing . Who do you think runs interference against regulation, the republicans. Here's a link to a news article by a news paper on just some of the problems in health care


    I should have said pandering a bit to much to the interests of the wealthy. I'm a card carrying Republican but what is Case in point....

    Warren Buffet and individuals in his tax bracket are able to pay less taxes in percentage terms than the people who work for them. This is accomplished by being able to structure all of your earnings subject to capital gains rates.

    The Republican argument for this is that the lower the tax rate encourages capital investment. These provisions only benefit the ULTRA Rich because of the substantial dollars that need to be involved for it to work. Former CEO of Apple, Steve Jobs was notorious for taking a $1.00 annual salary did just this with various financial instruments. Its not that he was being magnanimous, he was working the tax system that is only available to the ULTRA rich.

    Hedge fund Managers have a provision called Carried Interest if you want to get really angry at what the Republicans have done for their buddies, the ultra rich

    In the legislative process, these kinds of provisions given to the Republicans are usually in return for something that the Democrats really want that goes against Republican doctrine, like increased welfare entitlements etc. Bottom line is the working man has to pick up the slack for the sweetheart tax provisions materially benefit the rich and the cost of entitlement programs that benefit many that don't have any incentive to contribute to society.

    Like I said, I'm a card carrying Republican but this crap gets my blood boiling. I see this stuff in the tax code that is written is such a way to benefit a vary narrow group and it's just aggravating. Oil and Gas, Cable Companies, Insurance companies all have sweetheart tax provisions, why because a $10,000 political contribution gets you in front of a senator or congressman of your choice. The average taxpayer who works for a living...... get face time with an elected official, good luck. Many politicians Reps and Dems stopped doing town hall meetings because people were telling them what they didn't want to hear.

    Greg you tell me if you believe any of these above activities are justified by the Republican party.

    I disagree with a lot of what Democrats stand for except looking out for the little guy. The republicans fail this in so many ways, taxes and healthcare is but two examples.

    I recall an news piece where Chuck Shumer (a Dem) was talking about gun control after a shooting a few years back or so. A rather eloquent lady got up and said (I'm paraphrasing here) we need our guns to protect ourselves from bad elements in society but also to protect ourselves from an increasingly corrupt government. We need our guns to protect ourselves from you. I WAS AMAZED THIS MADE IT TO THE NEWS. Shumer just sat there dumbfounded.

    I'm starting to think that my beliefs are more in line with moderates looking to what makes sense for the country as a whole and not what is best for the group or groups that feed politicians re-election coffers. The problem is the few moderates out there get drowned out by the political extremes.

    Until we get money out of politics, I believe we headed for the same fate as the Roman Empire. This applies equally to both parties. Both parties basically suck, just in different ways. If democrats had their way we'd be in socialist state, if republicans had their way, there would be no regulation of monopolies and consumers would suffer tremendously. If you doubt the effectiveness of a monopoly or an oligopoly, look at what happened to gasoline prices after the OPEC oil embargo in the late 70's. Now just picture what monopolies could do with similar control commodities like basic necessities, food water etc. Republicans want to take away regulation some of which may no longer serve a purpose, but many were put in place to help consumers. That is something that this card carrying Republican credits democrats with, unfortunately the balance of their socialist agenda I don't care for.

  • I see. So you want the government more involved in our lives than they already are?

  • The big problem I see Martino1 is you are looking to government for the answers and fixes. That is why we are in the shit storm we have now. Government is not the answer...

  • Right on.

    Their power needs to be REDUCED, not expanded.

  • So I take it you guys are just k with health care providers charging 10 times the going rate if you don't have health insurance.

    I think we have to strike a balance with an eye on what's fair for the consumer. What is a balanced approach. Think about your electric bill. Electric companies are effectively monopolies. If we got government out of utility regulation, as you all suggest is the answer and the power company was allowed to charge what ever they wanted, there would be nothing stopping tge electric companies from raising you electric bill from $100/mo to 500 or even a $1000/ month.

    Sometimes when you can't have competition, you need something to keep sole suppliers from taking advantage of consumers.

    In the case where there are only a handful of suppliers and they collude to set prices, should nothing be done.

    During the industrial revolution there were terrible abuses by captains of industry, where workers had to endur dangerous working conditions, and if a worker got killed on the job because of those conditions, that worker's family went hungry. Labor laws were enacted to protect workers from being abused and exploited and hold employers accountable for hazards the employers create for their workers. Is it a perfect system. nope, but consider no govt involvement. Do you think our highways would be safe without cops stopping folks for DUI. Were that to happen, I'd have to get a bigger truck, and I got a big one now.

    Balance guys that's what I'm advocating..

  • The only thing government does well is waste money.

    And I believe without any government involvement most things would be way cheaper.

    If you can’t afford something people can’t profit on it.

    But if government subsidizes it then you can jack up the prices, because the government is the government, they spend money.

    It’s why they do stupid shit like pay $12,000 for a Remington sniper rifle or whatever the hell it is.

    Hell, if you need any more proof look at Colt, government contracts kept them in business when they lost that they filed for bankruptcy and all their shit is cheaper and they came out with a revolver again.

  • @martino1 said:

    So I take it you guys are just k with health care providers charging 10 times the going rate if you don't have health insurance.

    Must be... right? Because if we disagree with you, OBVIOUSLY we're advocating for the upper, middle, and lower class to ALL be turned into slave labor so the ultra-rich elite can live lives of luxury... right?


    ... and you want to "balance" my life? How would you know what is balance for me? Consider your location vs mine.

    Balanced for you is probably INTOLERABLE to me. So who decides?

    I have an idea; Everyone stay the hell out of my life. You, the government,... everyone. In return, I'll stay out of yours.

    Besides... last I checked, no one is forcing anyone to go to the hospital. You don't like the prices? Don't go. No one owes anyone health care.

  • @martino1 This social bs experiment has been going on for over 100 years. People need to regain there own critical thinking ability and un plug from the propaganda matrix. Look at what you wrote and think about if no government,would there be healthcare yes,would there be competitive pricing yes, if they want to stay in business. Would a company with poor safety be in business probably not because no one would work there. There would be so many more utility options without government picking who stays and who goes. Government through onerous regulations picked who stayed and who went. Croni capitalism at its finest. The populace needs to start thinking and stop listening and stop doing what they are told. It is time to question everything. One overbearing central government will never fit all. If you really stop and think we are not a free people just an illusion. Everything is regulated,taxed and we are coerced by the threat of government force.

  • @tpk936
    I think many here are mistaking my words as advocating for big government, I do not, but the fact is that a level of government is necessary for society to function.

    Our officials don't always do a good job, and most often they overreact with too much regulation. That said if we had no speed cops to stop people from driving drunk, or paramedics to help during an accident, I don't believe society would be better off. These services would not be universally available for a variety of reasons in a free market system. I understand that for some nothing I say will change your mind, and that's ok.

    Just because we have problems with our government doesn't mean that no government is the answer. We have the wrong people in government and the problem is WE keep putting the wrong people in government because of the inherent defects of the two party political system.

    MONEY gets people elected, and MONEY is supplied largely by special interests. How many times have each of you said to yourselves during elections for president or other office that these are two terrible choices. It's not that better people aren't out there, in order to get elected, you have to contract to follow either the Democrats party line or the Republican Party lines. I believe the best choices of ideas for society lie somewhere in the middle of their ideologies. Unfortunately because of the flaws in the two party system, moderates seem to run only as independents. Because of the difficulty in raising MONEY as an independent, few of them get elected. THAT is the problem of our government, MONEY Picks our government, NOT the people. Til we fix that, there will be sentiment against government.

    I'm not an advocate of big government, far from it. Just because we have the wrong people in office doesn't mean that no government is the answer.

    Every society since Adam and Eve has had some form of government regardless of what they were called. Call them presidents, Chiefs, Elders they all served a purpose.

    Even the most primitive tribes in South America and Africa have tribal leaders. Why because they served a function. I believe the people should elect their leaders. Early in our nation's history we did. Since then our system has gotten polluted by the influence that MONEY can buy.

    Government serves a purpose. If you doubt this, let the next respondent to this thread name a successful society without some form of government.

  • @martino1 First off since when is local police and first respondents federal government employees. Last time I checked they where all local municipalities etc. You are so confusing Government between local and federal. How about we stick to the constitution. Seems simple?

  • @tpk936

    I don't believe I'm mixing the two. Federal and Local government both provide services we cannot do without, unfortunately we have allowed the system to get way out of line at all levels of government. The examples of first responders was in response to a suggestion that all government was good for well not much. The problem isn't the structure, its the people in government. All levels of government have gotten used to being lobbied and receiving political contributions in return for votes that they don't see anything wrong with it. They wrote the laws saying it was ok, just like they wrote the laws making congresses and the senates' insider trading on stocks ok yet illegal to you and I. Once that was realized by the public, all heck broke loose.

  • ... and we're done here.

    City people will never understand country people.
    Country people will never understand city people.

    Country people don't try to tell city people what to do.
    If city people would stop trying to tell country people what to do, everything would be fine.