I feel this is more of an urban/rural divide rather than a blue state/red state divide though.
Madison WI is going to be more accepting than a small town in Illinois.
Well, cities tend to be blue, even in red states. So that makes sense.
True, but I didn’t consider that a “benefit of living in a blue state” since that’s part of Amtrak’s national long distance route system, not something specific to California. I was only considering the trains that are directly funded by California.
Maybe not in California. There are only 930 gun make/models that are legal to own there. Out of 10s or 100s of thousands that are available. Ruger is notably not on the list. I had also heard that CA wasn’t adding to the list but a quick search revealed that 9 were added in 2024.
That list looks like it’s a list of guns that are legal to sell in California, and not a list of what is legal to own. I would guess that if I moved to California, I would be able to bring my Springfield Armory 1911 even though my exact model is not listed (it’s about 30 years old and not a model currently offered by Springfield).
Blue states do not get more financial assistance from the federal government. It is the reverse. Red states take far more than they pay in versus blue states.
“financial assistance from the state government “, he said. Not federal.
So…the state is giving itself financial assistance? How does that work?
The state gives assistance to the public transit operators. I’m pretty sure that’s what he meant.
I think he meant federal aid. His statement doesn’t make sense otherwise. Who is giving aid to whom?
If he meant state to cities that just means blue states are better at supporting the people who live in their state and the money for that comes from the people who live in the state.
I think that IS what he meant. But I guess we’ll have to wait to see if he clarifies.
I also read it as, “blue states support public transit”. Most public transit systems get some of their funding through fares, and some from the government. The more that comes from the government, the better they can operate.
My in-laws lived in south Florida and frequently crowed about how lucky they were to get in with their primary care doc, as they were quite hard to find. Specialists were rarely an issue. They were in a "some “shortage” county. My daughter lives in Vermont (few shortages shown on the map) and has trouble accessing primary care - her doctor retired, and she was on a waiting list to get in with a doctor in the only walkable (did not drive at that point) practice. She’s lucky in that she lives in a large-by-Vermont-standards town, so there’s a decent hospital with most garden-variety specialists; to see anything out of the ordinary though, she has to travel.
Primary care access is a problem in a lot of areas. Mostly, I assume, more rural areas, though even in a DC suburb, it can be difficult, as there are a lot of doctors going the concierge route.
As far as benefitting, since Vermont tends blue (odd combo of mostly liberal politics, but very gun-friendly): she was able to get Medicaid long before our state expanded it, and their SNAP (food stamps) is not means-tested. Not that she has a TON of money, but she may have 3-4K in savings at times. She doesn’t get a LOT of SNAP, but at least she’s not booted out for having saved a little. However, it certainly comes at a cost: a couple years ago we looked at buying a condo in her town. The property tax rate is much higher; IIRC, the taxes on the condo, which was worth at most 1/4 of our house’s value here, were over half of our property taxes.