3114
Comments (125)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
18
spezisacuckold 18 points ago +19 / -1

Republican governors need to zone land use to contain cities and limit future development population density. This is the way.

12
SHALL_NOT 12 points ago +12 / -0

I like this idea. Not just for liberals but also for dystopian urban sprawls. If you’ve ever been to LA it’s just city for miles and miles and miles. It’s fucking gross.

8
spezisacuckold 8 points ago +8 / -0

The best way to go about it would be the environmental route. Use preservation of nature as a means to get enough votes.

7
Isolated_Patriot 7 points ago +7 / -0

Unfortunately this is exactly what they do in Canada. You guys should look into just how bad it is up here for the property market and how much it's been used to infect 90% of the population with the belief that "nobody needs a large home with a yard, everyone should be renting in multi-family homes!" Seriously, this kind of the regulation is pretty much the heart of how Communism has spread so far up here.

5
War_Hamster 5 points ago +5 / -0

Agenda 21 at work.

3
spezisacuckold 3 points ago +3 / -0

I think you may have my idea backwards.

Take Connecticut for example.

In Fairfield County 89% of land is classified for residential zoning of over one acre. This ensures that housing developments are low density and they preserve the status quo political culture.

Now do that, but for a right wing political culture and at the state level.

7
War_Hamster 7 points ago +7 / -0

The cities should have collapsed under their debt, but Wall Street and Congressional bailouts have delayed that.

4
SHALL_NOT 4 points ago +4 / -0

I like that angle. Conservatives don’t really need to be fed a reason to contain the cities. But libs will eat up environmental reasons. You can have the city, a ring of suburbs around it, then a ring of solar/wind power fields to put the city on renewable energy.

They’ll love that renewable shit, but it’s really our way of locking them in. No expanding beyond that shit and it ain’t moving.

2
Saremei 2 points ago +2 / -0

But they argue that they need higher density living to reduce habitat destruction.

1
spezisacuckold 1 point ago +1 / -0

“CIVIL RIGHTS OVER PROFITS”

There’s your slogan. It will appeal to a non insignificant chunk of leftists who will never think this through.

1
DiscoverAFire 1 point ago +1 / -0

The engineer in me loves the hydrology, but otherwise LA is disgusting and I have no idea how people live there.

2
FliesTheFlag 2 points ago +2 / -0

LA and the traffic can lick my un washed ass after a week of camping.

3
christianknight 3 points ago +3 / -0

Most Rs are cucks with political ambissions. They wont rock the boat. Those that try will he dealt with by the swamp.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
2
GlobalUnity 2 points ago +2 / -0

I don't see that as a real solution. That changes nothing about the underlying issues. Unless you are literally containing cities and it's residents, like I said, they will simply leave once the consequences come due and they will then spread their mental illness, never learning anything.

If we wanted to actually have an impact, we would need to make all government spending a function of what you support and the cost of it following you all your life anywhere you go … so if you support all the spending in CA, you don't just get to sell your overpriced house and buy up everything in Texas sight-unseen and then start infesting that community with your degeneracy and profit from it all.

It really comes down to this like it always does, that the abusers profit while other pay the costs and until that is stopped … people are forced to pay for what they incur, NONE of this will end and it will always end in calamity.

1
spezisacuckold 1 point ago +1 / -0

Zoning is 1st step and more of a stopgap measure to just stop the national suicide Marxism ushers in.

Enacting statewide versions of the Electoral College wherein counties become “states” is a more permanent 2nd step.

1
GlobalUnity 1 point ago +1 / -0

Regarding your second step, it is really not necessary, we essentially already have that, it's only ignored. The state representatives are supposed to pick the electors for presidential election, NOT based on the popular vote, but based on the party that has the power in the state legislatures. THAT is how they have REALLY been stealing the presidency for decades now. There are SEVERAL states where the electors are given to the popular vote in the state, rather than being selected by the legislature that represent the districts of the states. It's essentially what you seem to be saying re. "Electoral college wherein counties become 'states'"

THAT is something that people need to realize that is both right there, ripe for the picking and really simple to the point that it would have prevented the outcome of this election as well as most Democratic wins for at least the last 40 years.

It's sometimes rather disheartening to see and realize that people on our side are just not on the ball with these things. All it would take is to identify how the electoral college was perverted in each state and how it can be changed back (some states made it a state constitutional amendment) and then attack the representatives and hold them to pledges to not vote to support the popular vote electoral slate that is a violation of the Constitution and disenfranchises their votes.

There should also be a concerted effort to organize a legal campaign against the system on those grounds.

Literally if they followed the Constitution, several States would have sent Republican electors … but they didn't and they just followed the popular vote and ignored the Constitution and screwed their constituents. THAT is why the state district representatives HAVE TO be pressured to hold them to the Constitutional slate of electors regardless of how the population votes for president. There's literally nothing in the constitution that requires state popular vote for President … you vote for your representative and THEY are supposed to vote for the electors.

It's a REALLY easy ripe ass fruit if people would just get what is going on and what was done to pervert the system that way.

I cannot understate just how huge this aspect is and just how frustrating it is that people don't see it. It's literally key to everything in many ways. Which is EXACTLY why the democrats want to get rid of the electoral college altogether, because they KNOW if our side starts understanding this, they are FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKT

1
Goldlight 1 point ago +1 / -0

I hate this but this is the only defense we have right now

what really needs to happen is either:

  1. states break up into counties
  2. rural parts of CA, etc. break off into NEW states
  3. special provision for large metropoles and their surrounding suburbs to become their own states (1 seems more probably)

thinking about it, I think we can utilize 1) more often, just need more political will...