posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:57 AM
I guess I'm prejudiced, but I gotta go with Texas. I've lived in California for 40 years. The majority of those people live in the city, or just
outside the city limits. Their idea of outdoors living is driving to the mountains and renting a cabin. There are people who are more outdoorsy and
survivalist in Northern Cali, but the population that does this is minimal. Take away their electricity and ability to go to the grocery store, and
they'll turn on each other in a heartbeat.
New York, although populous, is similar to California. Same argument, although more hunters in upstate.
Texas, the natives are crazy out here. The men grew up roaming outside, shooting things with their .22s, and a lot of physical wrasslin'. Our
population is more spread out, there are more people who either live the rural lifestyle or try to every chance they get. There's a hell of a lot of
us, we're all armed, and fiercely proud of this state. There are many more family farms that have their own sources of fuel and food. Most of
Cali's farms are corporate farms.
We'd probably absorb New Mexico, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Colorado and Arkansas, because the people are all sort of similar to Texans in thse
states....big-time outdoorsmen, not afraid to fight.
Forget the coastal blue states when it comes to this scenario....The gangs may have guns, but they'll use them locally to terrorize each other. The
original picture posted by the OP showing the way the US would be trisected is probably correct.