Orangeman Cutting Off Liberal Governors

[Tortoise]

I like your gun-ban analogy, Tom. If we want to ban very dangerous tools since they may fall into the wrong hands, then we should at least try to apply that thinking consistently. Dems would say Trump is the most dangerous tool of them all.

The coming bailouts of the state governments are going to be mind-blowing, even if Trump is reelected. He may not give the blue states like CA 100% of the bailout funds they request, but he's definitely still going to give them a lot. They're too big to fail.

[Tortoise]

Gosh, the main problem is EVERYONE gets screwed if he doesn't bail out the liberal governors. Because people will flee California and bring their liberal policies to Arizona/Nevada/Idaho/Utah/Colorado.

And people are already fleeing NYC/NJ and bringing liberal policies to NC and Florida.

Wouldn't it be interesting if there were some kind of rule that if you want to vote in a given state's election, you have to sign an agreement to remain a resident of that state for a certain minimum period of time (say, 5-10 years)? Basically, "You want to vote? Then put some real skin in the game."

It would never happen, and I don't think it would be constitutional, but it's interesting to think about. I wonder if it would change the way some people vote, knowing that they'd potentially be stuck living with the consequences of their votes for 5-10 years.

[Kriegsspiel]

I don't remember what one it was, but I listened to a pretty good podcast from TJ Martinell about how he thought states were going to eventually put in border controls to keep out people from other states. We've seen that somewhat enacted due to the Wuhan, but his point was kind of the same as here, that people can ruin places with stupid voting, then leave.

IIRC he was the first person I had heard say that only landowners should be able to vote in local/state elections.