 I don't think the left would ever stop. I don't think they'll ever stop trying to invade our states or our counties, so how do we stop them? Well, I think that red states could choose and how they allow people to vote in their states. For example, over the past couple of years, we've seen a mass exodus from California and New York, where we've seen people fleeing those leftist policies and moving to states like Florida, Georgia, Texas, where they like the tax policies, they like the schools, they like the consequences of Republican and red policies. What I think would be something that some red states could propose is, well, okay, if Democrat voters choose to flee these blue states where they cannot tolerate the living conditions, they don't want their children taught these horrible things and they really change their mind on the types of policies that they support, well, once they move to a red state, guess what? Maybe you don't get to vote for five years. You can live there, you can work there, but you don't get to bring your values that you basically created in the blue states you came from by voting for Democrat leaders and Democrat policies. But this would be up to red states to be able to choose to do something like that so that their red states don't get changed, which is what's happening, unfortunately, when Democrat voters leave their Democrat states and they take their Democrat votes with them, that would be something that these red states would have to really consider and choose to do, but I'm a big believer in freedom, Charlie, but I'm also a big believer in defending our ability to pursue life and liberty and happiness and the left is completely destroying that for those of us on the right. That was Psychopathic and Authoritarian Lawmaker, Marjorie Taylor Greene's bright idea for stopping leftists from invading red states. You simply ban them from voting for five years. Hmm, sounds very, very democratic. It's all part of her brilliant idea for a national divorce, which by the way is definitely not secession. Now she initially floated this idea on Twitter this Monday saying, quote, we need a national divorce. We need to separate by red states and blue states and shrink the federal government. Everyone I talked to says this from the sick and disgusting vote culture issues shoved down our throats to the Democrats' traitorous America last policies, we are done. So in other words, she's calling for secession. Now, the last time states tried to secede, it triggered a civil war that was very bloody, but she assures us that that's not what she wants. She just wants a national divorce and secession but secession light? Here's what she means. On Tuesday, she penned a lengthy thread on Twitter where she elaborated on these dumbass ideas a little bit. Why the left and right should consider a national divorce, not a civil war, but a legal agreement to separate our ideological and political disagreements by states while maintaining our legal union, definition of irreconcilable differences, inability to agree on most things or on important things. Tragically, I think we, the left and right, have reached irreconcilable differences. I'll speak for the right and say, we are absolutely disgusted and fed up with the left cramming and forcing their ways on us and our children with no respect for our religion and faith, traditional values and economic and government policy beliefs. She actually is going through a divorce with her husband, so maybe that's why the word divorce is on her mind, but in essence, the way that you remedy these irreconcilable differences according to her is to shrink the size of the federal government so it's so small that it can fit inside bedrooms and bathrooms and you essentially let states be as fascistic and authoritarian as they want to be and that's how you remedy the problem that we're currently experiencing. Not only is it a stupid idea, but it's blatantly unconstitutional. However, she's gonna explain what this Christophascist dystopian ideal would look like in practice on Charlie Kirk's show. Now, we already heard that it would involve red states being able to ban people who move from blue states from voting, but here's what else she's envisioning. This is her perfect view of society. Well, a national divorce is not a civil war. It's actually separating by red states and blue states and making state rights and state power a lot stronger than it is right now. It would be shrinking the federal government. For example, we can take education. Well, if we have a national divorce, there's no need for the Department of Education. Red states and blue states would be in control of the education in each state. Red states would very likely have traditional education, homeschooling, charter schools, private schools, technical schools. They would not allow any type of gender lives being taught in their schools. LGBTQ teachers would be fired and not allowed to teach there. They would allow parents to be able to choose the curriculum instead of school boards that don't respect parents' beliefs and traditional family values. And it may be in blue states, they would have full gender transition schools for their students. I don't know what they would do, but I'm sure their education would look different than ours. No, just to make sure I understand, are you arguing for separate nations? No, not separate nations, not at all, because I believe in the United States of America and don't wanna see that go away. I believe that we still need a strong United States military, but the Department of Defense should return to its original charter and intent. And it's supposed, its mission is to defend our borders and our national security. And under what I'm talking about, that's what our Department of Defense would do. It wouldn't be more interested in fighting foreign wars and defending foreign countries' borders. It would defend the United States' borders so that each state could exist how it chooses to exist. Interesting. So if you were to ask me or any leftist what our ideal vision for society would be, it would look very different, right? Imagining a place where there's democracy in the workplace, every single citizen has healthcare that's free at the point of service. We expand freedom, civil rights, civil liberties. And overall, we make sure that people can afford to live comfortably so. There are social services that take care of people. But her, well, her ideal society includes dismantling public education and firing teachers who are gay. Now, I love how she also says that in this version of her society, well, the military would defend borders instead. But the problem with that is wouldn't you want states to have their own militaries? Because if you're already rewriting the Constitution and allowing red states to violate the Constitution and be authoritarian, then why would you keep the current federal military? Wouldn't you want to change that and federalize that as well? So states have their own individual militaries? It just, it doesn't really make sense. And her vision is pretty incoherent. But she views this as a win-win because the right could let their freak flags fly while the left can give bottom surgeries to children at elementary schools because that's exactly what they want. So it sounds like what she's proposing is a more complicated version of the philosophy live and let live. But the problem is that according to her, it's the blue states that want to force their ideology on everyone else. Now, she says this after being the lawmaker that introduced legislation to push her ideology on everyone else that would ban medically necessary gender affirming care for trans youth. And on top of that, Republicans have proposed nationwide bans on things like abortion. She herself literally identifies as a Christian nationalist which means that the government is supporting it to God which gives people like her divine authority to dictate how everyone else lives their lives and mandate that we all live according to her interpretation of her holy book. But she says the problem is us. No, Marjorie, the problem is you. We have irreconcilable differences, yes, because Christian nationalists like yourself want to dictate how we live our lives. Now, there's two main reasons why what she's proposing here is a terrible idea. First and foremost, I don't want to abandon working class people, LGBTQ plus people, people of color in red states. Every single one of us deserve a life with dignity. And you shouldn't have a terrible life because you were unlucky enough to be born in a state controlled by a theocratic nut job like there should be national standards for all of us, standards of living, standards of education, and so on and so forth. Second, shrinking the federal government would be catastrophic in particular for red states. As you can see from this graph here, red states overall are more federally dependent. Seven out of the 10 states who are most dependent on the federal government are red states. But why is this? Well, it comes down to policy. Quote, democratic leaning blue states tend to be wealthier and pay more to the federal government than they get in. In contrast, Republican leaning red states tend to have less wealth and receive more federal government funds than they pay. A really conservative state might choose to tax itself at a lower rate, which means by default, they can give fewer state funded services, explains Kathy Fallon, Human Services Practice Areas Director at Public Consulting Group. Quote, that can exacerbate the situation. So in other words, red states rely on the federal government to keep taxes low in the first place for rich people and corporations. And if Marjorie Taylor Greene actually got what she wanted, those red states would be forced to act more like blue states in order to balance their budgets. Now, the federal government subsidizes state and local governments in areas like healthcare, education, roads and bridges. And without that money, states would suffer greatly, especially red states. And let's get back to what this is really about in the first place. It's not about the way that states should be structured. What Marjorie Taylor Greene wants is a dystopian, Christofascist hellscape that she knows would be unconstitutional. Her ideal society isn't legal under the current constraints of the constitution. And that's what this is really about. She wants right-wing authoritarians to be able to subvert the constitution and do what they want, create many Christian equivalents of Saudi Arabia in Alabama and West Virginia. But I'm sorry, no, what you're calling for is secession. What you're calling for is a completely different country unlike the one that we currently have today. And it's all because you refuse to let others live in a way that you don't deem fit. The problem is you. It's not that the wokists are pushing their agenda on you. It's that you are pushing your reprehensible reactionary agenda on everyone else. And if you just f**k off and let people live in the way that they want to live, then we wouldn't be fighting each other. Yes, we have irreconcilable differences, but in a liberal society, there's this expectation that we allow people to do what they wanna do so long as they're not hurting anyone else. But you dipshits won't support that philosophy. You dipshits keep trying to impose your Christ of fascist world view on everyone else. Again, she is a Christian nationalist. So maybe if you think that individuals forcing their views on other people is a problem, you look in the goddamn mirror first, Marjorie. Jesus Christ. Up yours, up yours, up yours. Son of a b**ch, a b**ch, a b**ch. Woke more or less, woke more or less, woke more or less. I dreamed I saw my maternal grandmother. She was stroking herself absentmindedly. I let her have her way. The genital region was exposed. I let her have her way.