One solution would be a re-structuring along urban/rural lines. The major cities could become self-governing, self-financing "city-states", collecting taxes and imposing their "values" within their borders. The rural counties would re-organize into regional groups based on mutual interest, shared values, etc.
The urban/rural divide in attitudes and values is fundamental and well documented, dating back centuries. Such a de-centralization would benefit moral, self-reliant, "leave us alone" types -- which is precisely why the collectivist parasite classes would never allow it.
the sprawling suburbs make this tricky. i could see tendencies going in blue or red depending on the area each suburban neighborhood is in, but that would only invite further conflict.
it's hard to defend a reason suburbs should even exist, but they do, and so the spectrum of population density there makes it difficult to throw a category of urban/rural on each.
True. But existing "metro areas" like L.A. already include multiple jurisdictions. Communities in the fringes could decide whether to join the metropolis, or remain in the rural/regional associations instead.
This utopian de-centralization plan would also involve abolishing the existing state and federal govt structures, along with the top-down "global governance" plans of the oligarchy. The odds are not in our favor. :)
Here's a California story. Imagine an idyllic, very culturally special community with long history of their unique interests in nature, water conservation, creative endeavors, hippy values, economy that manages to balance itself and pay for its own needs, nestled high up in the mountains. They even have their own water.
Okay! Now we're going to hold a vote!
The vote is: Far down the mountains, a totally disconnected city in a disconnected county with the majority of residents from a different country and not officially registered or paying taxes -- well, they don't have enough money to pay for trash collection and have announced to their residents that the police department is broke so please protect yourselves because we're not able to come out. So the vote is this: Should this city spread its congressional district borders to officially take over the idyllic mountain community, thus taxing all of the mountain residents to pay for the city's problems?
Who gets to vote? Well, all the people in the huge city! Versus the 1 lonely representative allotted to the mountain residents. The vote was a landslide: Everybody to One. This overtake is described in the city newspaper as a wonderful development, because now Nightmare City (who can't afford trash collection or police) can supposedly 'help maintain and pay for the hiking trails' in the mountains -- whose less dense population apparently hadn't been managing perfectly for generations? Hooray, now these trails will be "more accessible" for the hordes and droves. Let the taxation begin.
That's why the self-governing "city-state" in the proposed model would not have the power to simply annex new territory or impose any policy outside its borders. Similar to Singapore or Lichtenstein, for example. To expand, they would have to negotiate suitable terms, subject to approval by the affected property owners.
Sounds like a good idea. I could see that quickly becoming a designer option in the near future, attracting like-minded people to certain cities or non-cities. It would also make sense from an overall view of human productivity, to have different models freely exploring different plans. And it would be a welcome model of choices+consequences.
Some picky points: a) the blue counties are where most of the ppl happen to be. b) These election results are only as accurate as the vote-"counting" is, and for at least 2 decades now, computers have been used to undetectably flip votes from one candidate to another--this is in addition to mailed-in ballots, which have always been counted after the voter's chain-of-custody w/ his ballot has been broken. c) To the extent that voters vote for the lesser of the (several) evils, their "choice" (even if counted accurately) depends on the outcomes of the primaries, which also suffer from secret vote-counting.
I agree that one of the problems are the people that count the votes.
As long as the fraud is permitted to exist, Team Reality will lose to Team Cult o'Death.
In 2016, Jill Stein had a recount in MI. I spoke to someone who was a witness for Trump. The boxes of ballots would read "186 Hillary, 4 Trump." When you opened the box, it would be 12 Hillary, 98 Trump." The R governor did NOTHING about it. NOTHING.
So... I don't know how we can ever overcome the greatest voter fraud ever in compromised states.
As long as they can pretend that it's all a sore loser conspiracy theory, they're safe. We need just one state to blow the lid off it. Arizona's AG just announced an investigation, so keep your fingers crossed.
The voters MUST be allowed to count the ballots themselves, right after they've watched ALL the ballots being collected in a transparent container, & re-counted as many times as it takes to reach consensus, BEFORE those ballots leave the direct view of the voters who cast them. (A scenario which isn't even LEGAL in 80% of the country. And a lot of states don't even rate paper ballots, making for 100% unverifiable elections.) This should make election fraud pretty difficult.
If the following article is correct, the Democrats have a majority of the governorships. Then you have to discount all the RINO governors, e.g. Phil Scott in VT.
"That means Democrats netted two seats in the midterm elections, bringing the party breakdown of governorships from 22 Democrats and 28 Republicans to a more even 24-26 split."
Yes, but that doesn't mean they're actual Democrats; and the entire political spectrum (of politicians, though not necessarily of voters) has shifted so far to the right that a "Democrat" nowadays is just a Republican who upholds a woman's right to safe abortion (MAYBE), & possibly gay marriage--neither of which is going to lose the ruling 1% a lot of money.
One solution would be a re-structuring along urban/rural lines. The major cities could become self-governing, self-financing "city-states", collecting taxes and imposing their "values" within their borders. The rural counties would re-organize into regional groups based on mutual interest, shared values, etc.
Makes sense. The traditional boundary lines don't represent shared interests anymore (if they ever did).
The urban/rural divide in attitudes and values is fundamental and well documented, dating back centuries. Such a de-centralization would benefit moral, self-reliant, "leave us alone" types -- which is precisely why the collectivist parasite classes would never allow it.
Well said. I guess the question comes down to: how long will the parasite class be allowed to decide what is allowed?
The only immediate remedy is to get active locally.
Support your local Sheriff!
the sprawling suburbs make this tricky. i could see tendencies going in blue or red depending on the area each suburban neighborhood is in, but that would only invite further conflict.
it's hard to defend a reason suburbs should even exist, but they do, and so the spectrum of population density there makes it difficult to throw a category of urban/rural on each.
True. But existing "metro areas" like L.A. already include multiple jurisdictions. Communities in the fringes could decide whether to join the metropolis, or remain in the rural/regional associations instead.
This utopian de-centralization plan would also involve abolishing the existing state and federal govt structures, along with the top-down "global governance" plans of the oligarchy. The odds are not in our favor. :)
Here's a California story. Imagine an idyllic, very culturally special community with long history of their unique interests in nature, water conservation, creative endeavors, hippy values, economy that manages to balance itself and pay for its own needs, nestled high up in the mountains. They even have their own water.
Okay! Now we're going to hold a vote!
The vote is: Far down the mountains, a totally disconnected city in a disconnected county with the majority of residents from a different country and not officially registered or paying taxes -- well, they don't have enough money to pay for trash collection and have announced to their residents that the police department is broke so please protect yourselves because we're not able to come out. So the vote is this: Should this city spread its congressional district borders to officially take over the idyllic mountain community, thus taxing all of the mountain residents to pay for the city's problems?
Who gets to vote? Well, all the people in the huge city! Versus the 1 lonely representative allotted to the mountain residents. The vote was a landslide: Everybody to One. This overtake is described in the city newspaper as a wonderful development, because now Nightmare City (who can't afford trash collection or police) can supposedly 'help maintain and pay for the hiking trails' in the mountains -- whose less dense population apparently hadn't been managing perfectly for generations? Hooray, now these trails will be "more accessible" for the hordes and droves. Let the taxation begin.
That's why the self-governing "city-state" in the proposed model would not have the power to simply annex new territory or impose any policy outside its borders. Similar to Singapore or Lichtenstein, for example. To expand, they would have to negotiate suitable terms, subject to approval by the affected property owners.
Sounds like a good idea. I could see that quickly becoming a designer option in the near future, attracting like-minded people to certain cities or non-cities. It would also make sense from an overall view of human productivity, to have different models freely exploring different plans. And it would be a welcome model of choices+consequences.
War? Do we even have the testosterone for a weekend skirmish?
Might be finding out soon.
Some picky points: a) the blue counties are where most of the ppl happen to be. b) These election results are only as accurate as the vote-"counting" is, and for at least 2 decades now, computers have been used to undetectably flip votes from one candidate to another--this is in addition to mailed-in ballots, which have always been counted after the voter's chain-of-custody w/ his ballot has been broken. c) To the extent that voters vote for the lesser of the (several) evils, their "choice" (even if counted accurately) depends on the outcomes of the primaries, which also suffer from secret vote-counting.
All valid points! Presented for informational purposes only. 😁
I agree that one of the problems are the people that count the votes.
As long as the fraud is permitted to exist, Team Reality will lose to Team Cult o'Death.
In 2016, Jill Stein had a recount in MI. I spoke to someone who was a witness for Trump. The boxes of ballots would read "186 Hillary, 4 Trump." When you opened the box, it would be 12 Hillary, 98 Trump." The R governor did NOTHING about it. NOTHING.
So... I don't know how we can ever overcome the greatest voter fraud ever in compromised states.
As long as they can pretend that it's all a sore loser conspiracy theory, they're safe. We need just one state to blow the lid off it. Arizona's AG just announced an investigation, so keep your fingers crossed.
And then what? Will the election be re-done?
Good question. This is uncharted territory, so I guess we're going to find out whether anything happens at all.
Well, I think we might be beyond finger crossing at this point.
Perhaps "prayer, for those inclined" might be a better idea.
Sounds good to me.
The voters MUST be allowed to count the ballots themselves, right after they've watched ALL the ballots being collected in a transparent container, & re-counted as many times as it takes to reach consensus, BEFORE those ballots leave the direct view of the voters who cast them. (A scenario which isn't even LEGAL in 80% of the country. And a lot of states don't even rate paper ballots, making for 100% unverifiable elections.) This should make election fraud pretty difficult.
My family was democratic in1960s.
Since 1973, They are depraved, absolutely despise natural law and common sense, logic.
I'm no fan of Republicans... I pray for Triumph of Immaculate Heart, social kingship of Jesus Christ.
I'm 62... Very, very few politicians I would let in my house... Or my doghouse
If the following article is correct, the Democrats have a majority of the governorships. Then you have to discount all the RINO governors, e.g. Phil Scott in VT.
"That means Democrats netted two seats in the midterm elections, bringing the party breakdown of governorships from 22 Democrats and 28 Republicans to a more even 24-26 split."
https://people.com/politics/democrats-net-2-governor-seats-midterm-elections/
Yes, but that doesn't mean they're actual Democrats; and the entire political spectrum (of politicians, though not necessarily of voters) has shifted so far to the right that a "Democrat" nowadays is just a Republican who upholds a woman's right to safe abortion (MAYBE), & possibly gay marriage--neither of which is going to lose the ruling 1% a lot of money.