Remember when we used to kill politicians for this shit? Ha ha ha.
But seriously bitch, this is how you start a civil war.
Dems absolutely love to cry against gentrification and colonization while employing these very same tactics to benefit them.
I completely agree with your opinion but looking at that last bit of the conversation from the other side is super fucked too.
“I live in a dangerous place filled with people whom I believe pose an immediate threat to my children’s well-being. I want to leave here as soon as possible.”
“Ok but move to a place that is just as dangerous because keeping some cocksucker with a blue tie employed is far more important than your kid’s safety :)”
Also idk how “demographics is destiny” is a white supremacist dog whistle when you have people advocating shit like this openly.
A while ago we were having one of those Is Civil War Coming threads and someone said “Wake me up when we start having a replay of Bloody Kansas (in which pro- and anti-slavery advocates both moved to the new state en masse in order to change the balance of states)”.
Ohhh yikes this is gonna suck.
(How about you save these places for the refugees, huh?)
(this is also a case where the Right would actually be as effective at civil war as it thinks it would be, which aaaaaaarrrrrrggggghhh that’s not good)
Enh. It’s dumb to move to a place just because you want to try to influence the politics there, unless you’re some kind of plutocrat or dynastic politician, but basically nobody actually does that – I read this more as a combination of “I want other people to do this while I stay here and have an easier commute” and “we want to move to this place because it’s affordable/closer to family, and need some rationale that the political difference isn’t a dealbreaker.” Which seems fine, since right now a lot of the US’ problem is that teeming millions are packed into a handful of megacities and then most of the country is really affordable but has no people or jobs. Certainly, if the white progressive families move to red states and the refugees move to socal, that’s a situation everyone is likelier to be happy with than the reverse.
More generally, people need to remember that in the US, an unassailable party bastion is a place where two-thirds of the population votes for that party. The number of people who reliably vote blue in invincible red states, and red in invincible blue states, is so enormous that society would collapse instantly if you removed them. So it’s not like the expats here are imposing a fundamentally alien culture: if Californians move to Idaho to vote blue they’re going to have to vote for what blue looks like in Idaho, not what it looks like in California, because there will still be way fewer of them than homegrown Democrats. Nobody likes it when big-city professionals parachute in and try to take over, so they’ll need to work within the system as they find it. Practically speaking, you only get large enough influxes to rapidly change the culture statewide when there’s some kind of economic boom, so any effect is going to be the sort of multigenerational drift that’s already happening everywhere.
Now, about the Kansas thing – if someone makes a new state in a sparsely populated area adjacent to multiple other states, then yeah, it’ll be a lot tenser. But this is more of an incremental-reform thing and people can’t muster that much enthusiasm for that when it involves completely changing your family’s life in the process.
I know like six people who are planning on renting out their houses across the US to move to New Hampshire in order to try to make it into ancapistan.
I was thinking of that exact thing, yeah.