The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I can't remember what thread it was but I know the topic of why people were flocking to Florida was discussed. I said it was because of the things our Republican governor was doing and others thought it was just because life was cheaper here and the weather is great most of the time.  Either way ... it seems like a lot of the blue that is moving here is now red so I'm sticking with the GOP ideals we are experiencing here in Florida. #dontnewyorkmyflorida



DeSantis: People Coming To FL ‘Overwhelmingly’ Registering As Republicans; Democrats Switching To GOP

Republican Florida Governor Ron DeSantis told Fox News during a town hall event Wednesday night that people who are moving to Florida are “overwhelmingly” registering as Republicans, including former Democrats who fled blue states.

“The media at the beginning of this said Florida’s bad and I think it’s because they want to damage Trump in Florida, they want to damage me. So, they just kept saying it was bad,” DeSantis said. “And even though the facts didn’t say it, like literally last April, they’re saying Florida is doing worse than New York. New York was like 10 times worse.”

“And so, I think what it did is the people that buy those phony narratives for these media, they probably aren’t coming to Florida. But most people see through it. But the people that see through it, they think like us. And so, I think a lot of these people are coming. I think they are registering as Republicans overwhelming,” he continued. “And I also have come across a lot of people who, quite frankly, were Democrats. The lockdowns turned them into Republicans.”

(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1481/7678/products/S_Navy_1e368c4a-ddcc-4f50-93dc-241213e941a2_600x.jpg?v=1596637117)

"Many people are saying that they used to be Democrats, but they moved to Florida and switched to being Republicans.  I had a big, strong guy... huge, like a mountain... come to me, with tears in his eyes, and say, 'Sir, thank you for ending the lockdowns and allowing me to feed my family.' Believe me!"

I would say there is a scarcity of data supporting the claim that recent (blue state?) transplants to FL used to be Democrats.  There are Republicans in blue states, too.

Northerners from blue states retire to Florida.  Some of these individuals, like myself, registered as Democrats 30 or 40 years ago, when the Democratic Party supported the middle class as well as the lower class.  However, the current Democratic Party has abandoned the middle class, probably because the middle class has shrunken so much.  So, now these individuals are transplanting to FLA and have the requirement to re-register and they are registering as Republicans because they believe that the Republican Party gives better support to the working man/woman.  I would bet many of these people have been voting more in line with Republicans over the past 10-15 years even though they may have been registered as Democrats.

I think there is some validity to that point.  I think that a lot of people become more politically conservative with age.  I don't know who said it, but a quote which has been falsely attributed to Winston Churchill is, "If you are not liberal when you young, you have no heart.  If you are not conservative when you are old, you have no brain."    I'm not saying I agree with the quote, but it does speak to what you were talking about.  Oddly, I did kind of the opposite.  I was fiercely conservative when I was young and as I have aged, I have become more liberal at least on social issues.   I'm still pretty hawkish financially and in foreign affairs. 

I think that the tax friendly way Florida is set up and the weather are both things that people can appreciate regardless of whether they are Democrat or Republican.  I don't know anyone who wants to pay MORE taxes or hates nice weather. 

Report fromWESH today says Seminole County is now blue. It's a slim margin though

Dems 118306
Rep 117999
NPA 98796

I'm not a local, so what's the significance of Seminole County in this context?

I live there and unless CF moved so does he, he grew up there at least. Also Biden was the first Democrat Presidential candidate to win the county since Truman.

Florida likes to pretend it's purple, but it's not.  It's a red state at this point.

I don't really read too much into these swinging political trends, because they're so fluid.  ...same with Texas.  Everyone wants to pretend that's going blue, but it's just not that simple.

If I had to guess, based on what I'm seeing just in my own life, is that the type of people who are coming to Florida at this point are established.  The real estate prices here basically make it impossible to be young and move here from another part of the country.  That was different 15 years ago -- a ton of my friends were Ohio transplants getting into new fields down here.  It's just not like that anymore.

There is an exodus of younger people here, because your housing money can stretch a lot farther a couple of states up the coast.

But just like that swung in 15 years, it could swing the other way for the next 15...who knows?

Also, you can't really look at the GOP right now and compare them to traditional Republicans.  It's a different brand and they have a different base than before.  That will shake out and we'll see where it ends up.

I don’t actually buy that though. All commissioners and most other politicians are Republican so that shows you were the vote is going. Like was mentioned ... I myself voted Republican for years as a registered Democrat.

The thing I have against Trumpian Republicans is that even when I agree with (or to an even greater extent don't agree with but at least understand) is their tone in how things are carried out.

Desantis is a good example of that.  I don't hate every single choice he's made and even when he does stuff like ease COVID restrictions, he doesn't do it in a measured, intelligent way.  He is brash and undermines his message in a way that makes it more dangerous for us and turns it into a political thing.

If he were to come out and say "We understand that there is a risk when easing COVID restrictions, but as we learn more about the virus and things that we can do to prevent transmission, we trust the people of Florida to assess their own risks, maintain safe protocols, while allowing businesses to open and our economy to function.  I believe that with the help of all Floridians, this balance will let us keep the virus under control while maintaining our shared livelihood until we can return to normalcy."

Even though I might find it too early to open certain businesses, I can handle a statement like that, because it's the right message.  I really feel like this new brand of Republicans is not at all interested in doing what's best for me, but they have a "fuck you", stick a finger in your eye, taunting way about everything.

For all the shit I gave George W. Bush on policy, he always at least pretended that the choices he was making was what he felt was best for me, even if I didn't believe it yet.

Maybe because we're sick and tired of what the left is trying to do, and the COVID shutdown was a perfect example.  Develop a fearful mentality in the people, shut the country down for a virus that has a 99.6% survival rate, then blame Trump for the inevitable economic downturn. 

And so what if we have a "fuck you" way of going about it.  I really don't care if doing what's right hurts some people's feelings.  That's the beauty of living in America.  The constitutional right to free speech and free expression was put in place to protect those that could be offensive.

Dave, your mistake is in believing that the policy is the point.  Doing the stuff you say, but with a conciliatory and bipartisan tone, would defeat the whole purpose.  The goal is to trigger the libs, and the more triggered they are, the more his base loves it.

CF revealed it long ago: the post-Trump right just want their leaders to attack liberals without ever apologizing.  It's cathartic to hear DeSantis, MTG, Trump, etc. say all the things they wish they could, but won't (IRL) because of the social backlash they would receive.

DeSantis 2024

The northern part of the state is red.  Where we live is blue.  The I-4 corridor is the purple part.... and that's the part that picks presidents.

You hear whatever you want to don't you? Must of really sucked in school when being tested for reading comprehension. There is a certain percentage that gets off of the way Trump pisses people off but it's his policies that sell him to the majority of his voters. Myself and others that I know support Trump but are not looking for him to return in 2024. He's opened the eyes to other politicians to let them know it's ok to be a Republican and you don't have to sell out like the Bush's and others in government. Give me Nikki Haley and DeSantis over Trump any day.

I don't think this is even close to true.  As another conservative I know put it:

If conservatives felt "attacked" from 2008-2016, from 2017 to now they must feel like every single day is a siege on their very existence by the media, the liberal elites, the race hustlers, the wokesters, etc.  Conservatives are being "attacked" even more today than they were under Obama!

The "in your face" rebuttal is so appealing that it overrides anything else.  You guys used to be in favor of "free markets" until Trump started talking about tariffs on China, then you were in favor of tariffs.  You used to think Russia was our #1 geopolitical adversary, then Trump started fluffing Putin and now you'd rather be a Russian than a Democrat.

There is no longer any consistent policy among the right.  Hell, the Republican Party didn't even make a policy platform for 2020!  They just recycled the 2016 platform, complete with references to the failed incumbent administration.  The only conservative priority is "triggering the libs," and it takes precedence over everything else.

You people get triggered by almost any silly shit. There's no need for anyone to make it a priority LMFAO.

More like they get triggered by anything that hurts their feelings, even if it's actually truth.

Must've (or "must have") really sucked in school when being tested for basic English skills.

Conversation language or as my old professor called it conversational jargon.  Possibly you've heard of it up in your ivory tower? If you plan on being a grammar Nazi on internet message boards then it explains why you are always miserable. Might want to develop a hobby.

Never apologize, never admit a mistake (no matter how minor).  Instead, make up some alternative grammar and attack the person who pointed out your error.  And you still believe it's possible for another primary candidate to beat Trump in your Republican Party, when he is everything you embody and aspire to be. You're deep in denial.

You honestly believe that this is what converts blue state "liberals" to your team?  Ridiculous.  There's an easier answer: people who benefitted from the kind of policies (like investment in public infrastructure) that comes with blue state taxes... they hit retirement age, no longer have a need for parks or schools, and decide that they don't want to pay for the same perks other taxpayers provided for them in earlier times.  So they pull up the ladder behind them and move to a "low tax" red state where the feds pay for all the services that the state refuses to.

There is no more accurate summation of the anti-tax American right than "I got mine, fck you." People who attended public schools when they were children, but don't want to pay for public schools today.

Oh no you didn't. You jump on someone for alternative grammar, but at the same time act like a petulant child and complain when someone uses proper terminology when debating about restricting the rights of the American people. Or you try to argue with the dictionary about the definition of words. "Proper terminology" and "real definitions" of words are much more important than simple grammar when having an intelligent discussion. You're hypocritical, your views are non congruent, and you are the very definition of a walking contradiction. 

No sir, you obsessively focus on avoiding proper terminology and proper definitions because it blows your radical leftist agenda out of the water, LMFAO.......

The appropriate analogy would be if every time you tried to have a discussion about immigration policy, I would just say "You call them illegal aliens but they're actually undocumented immigrants," and I repeatedly pivoted to that terminology argument every time instead of addressing any sort of argument about policy.

I mean, I've already tried to address the "assault rifle" argument in good faith by citing the definition used in federal legislation (http://www.thedolphinsmakemecry.com/forums/index.php?topic=21508.msg285953#msg285953), but that doesn't seem to stop the endless chants of "But what does 'assault rifle' mean?".  So it seems like that argument over terminology is just a smokescreen to avoid discussing policy.

2013, LMFAO. Hey remember all those little kids that were blown up and stabbed to death with with grenade launchers and bayonets? That's why the left doesn't want to define these made up terms, because it shows you people are fucking silly.

Don't be shy, just come out and say it already. You people don't want to ban assault weapons. You want to ban all firearms.

Once again: I give you the definition used in federal legislation, and we're back to the "bUt wHaT iS aN aSsAuLt wEaPoN?" merry-go-round.
When you are given a straightforward legal definition, you simply refuse to accept it.  Because for you, perpetually squabbling over the definition of "assault weapon" is more hospitable ground than discussing actual gun policy.  (And I'm not sure why you're laughing about "2013," as it seems your positions are the same now as they were then.)

Are you also under the illusion that another Republican could beat Trump in a GOP primary?  You seem more in touch with current-day conservatism than CF, who is still wrapped up in 20th-century GOP kayfabe.

We don't want blue state liberals on our team.  We're fine as we are.


There is no such thing as an assault rifle.  That label is a term made up by the liberals themselves to promote their agenda of banning guns in the U.S.  Assault is an action, not an object.  If you pissed me off and I responded by throwing my smartphone at your head, does that make it an assault smartphone?

Fine, if that's the definition you want to use, we can discuss actual gun policy. If you want a policy to ban something, you need a reason to ban it.

Please explain to me how certain cosmetic features make one semi automatic weapon more dangerous than another semi automatic weapon.  To my knowledge, there have been no mass shootings with a bayonet. There have been no mass shootings with a grenade launcher, which by the way is already NFA regulated. So why ban it again other than dramatic effect? Beyond that, pistol grips, telescoping stocks, and threaded barrels have no effect on how deadly a firearm is. You might as well ban them based on their color or smell.

I don't even know what this means ???

DeSantis 2024 woo

And here we are, back in the terminology vortex.

"Assault rifle is a made up term"... that was already on the books as enforced federal legislation for 10 years.
"Tell me what makes this particular weapon more dangerous" - ask the people who wrote the laws!  I'm not an expert on firearms (and neither are you).

If we're trying to have a discussion about whether drunk driving is a problem, it's a distraction to fixate on "Why is it .08% BAC instead of .07% or .10%?  Tell me what makes .08% BAC dangerous but .07% BAC perfectly fine."   Especially if you don't think there should be ANY laws restricting drinking and driving at all!

It's all a smokescreen.

No actually, assault rifle is a valid term. It's a selective fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.

However, the liberals use the political term "assault weapon" with a fluid and ever changing definition that usually encompass the majority of semi automatic firearms in the country. They do this in their goal to ban all guns without saying they want to ban all guns. They're conflating military weapons with civilian firearms with the word "assault" trying to scare and/or fool the uninformed and ignorant portion of the public. Same with their use of "weapons of war" and "ghost guns". How the hell can a civilian market AR15 be a weapon of war if one has never been used in a war? Ignorant liberal logic and scare tactics, that's all.

In point of fact, "banning semi-automatic guns" would not be "banning all guns."

Pondwater seems like an expert on firearms to me.

That bans everything but bolt action rifles and a handful of a particular kind of revolver.

I don't hear you calling to ban alcohol, and it kills many times more people a year than assault weapons. It's against the law to drink and drive. It's against the law to shoot people. Now tell me what percentage of people killed in shootings are killed with assault weapons. Then tell me with a straight face that assault weapons are a problem, LMFAO.

That's right, it's all a liberal smokescreen. Because in the drunk driving scenario you would be trying to ban just vodka when any other alcoholic drink will get you just as drunk and result in a DUI and/or death.

I never claimed to be an expert. But when it comes to knowledge of firearms between you and me. You're in the 3rd grade and I'm in college.

Unfortunately, those idiot politicians who wrote those laws aren't here and wouldn't win that argument. However, you provided a definition of "assault weapon". Using the definition you provided. Do YOU want firearms that fit that definition banned?

So wait, now you want to ban all semi-automatic firearms, not just what you call "assault weapons"?

First off: we tried it and it didn't work.
Second, alcohol - like knives, or cars, or dogs - serve a purpose other than inflicting injury.  When someone dies in a drunk driving collision, it's an unfortunate accident; when children are gunned down at a school, it's the product functioning as intended.  Guns are designed and intended to dispense injury and death: it is their explicit function and purpose.

You insist that I want to "ban all guns," but even if I did want to ban all semi-automatic weapons, that would not be advocating to "ban all guns."  Q.E.D.

If you're asking if I support a reinstatement of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, the answer is an emphatic yes.

So you're saying that civilian market firearms are specifically "intended" to gun down children? Because I know for a fact that alcohol is specifically intended to impair people's judgement and motor functions. Is alcohol "functioning as intended" by causing injury, death, and wrecking people's lives?

Since dispensing injury and death are illegal, it seems like a bad business model. About 390 million guns in the country and about 15,000 firearm related homicides per year. Let's see 15000 ÷ 390,000,000 = can't believe they're still in business. The fact is that most civilian firearms are rarely used except for hunting, target shooting, or collecting. Now if you want to ban weapons that kill the most people, ban military weapons. Otherwise stop with the propaganda and scare tactics.

So since you provided a definition of "assault weapon". And you support a so called assault weapon ban that was ineffective. I shouldn't have to "ask the people who wrote the laws", you should be able to intelligently tell me how the following cosmetic features make a firearm more deadly. 

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one

Don't even bother trying to explain bayonet mount & grenade launcher since I think they were added as a joke or something. I'm 99.9999999999999999% sure that we don't have a problem with people killing each other with bayonets and grenade launchers. As noted earlier, grenade launchers are already restricted NFA items, so why are they included in an "assault weapons" ban anyhow?

Try asking him why the military issues fully automatic rifles.

There are non-semi-automatic pump-action shotguns that would be unaffected by such a ban.

They are specifically intended to injure living beings.  Children are living beings, so the guns are working as intended.

First off, alcohol is a naturally-occurring chemical that isn't "intended" for anything.
Alcoholic beverages are NOT produced specifically to impair judgement and motor functions, and describing the purpose and intent of drinking alcohol as "to impair judgement and motor function" says a lot more about your drinking habits than anything else.

Not sure why you would say dispensing injury and death is "illegal"; any conservative can tell you that it's literally the point of the 2nd Amendment.  The 2nd Amendment fever dream is of a Good Guy With A Gun dispensing injury and death to The Evildoers, and it's incredibly legal.  Stand Your Ground!

Hate to break this to you, but "hunting" is dispensing injury or death (i.e. the purpose of a gun).
I know you don't believe the 2nd Amendment was created to protect our right to participate in target shooting and/or collecting, so you probably shouldn't pretend like that is the intended purpose of a gun.  They are weapons of death, by design.  At least have the honesty to own it.

"Ineffective"?  Says you.
You don't even dispute that firearm crime was reduced during the time the ban was in effect; you just refuse to acknowledge that it was related.

What exactly would you like to know?

You're conflating shooting animals with shooting children? Not even close to the same thing.

Alcohol is a toxic poison and depressant drug that is packaged and marketed to specifically intoxicate a person. When people die from alcohol consumption or alcohol related accidents, it's alcohol working as it was produced and marketed for. That's not even up for debate.
 
You're conflating self defense with murder. They are two different things

You're conflating hunting with murder. They are two different things

The 2nd amendment was created for protection and self defense. And since it's a legal product to own, firearms are ultimately purchased for reasons specific to the purchaser. Whether a firearm is purchased for self defense, target shooting, collecting, or a paper weight doesn't matter. The fact is that 99.99% of people who own firearms don't murder other people with them. And as long as they are law abiding citizens, it's none of your business why they buy them. Your argument is silly nonsense and you sound like a paranoid old lady.

Speaking of the definitions of words:

- You're conflating "designed to inflict injury and/or death" with "designed to murder," which is not the same thing
- You're conflating "toxic" with "intoxicate," which are not synonyms in the contexts of recreational drugs (despite their similar spelling)

If the injury or death isn't murder, what's the problem? Injury or death for hunting? Injury or death resulting from self defense? Injury or death from suicide? Injury or death from accidents? What's your point? Murder of children or anyone else for that matter, is different from all of the above. So what you cryin about?
 
Hahaha, that's the best you got?  Alcohol is a poison that can be toxic. It is specifically produced and marketed to intoxicate the user.

My guns must be defective.  They just sit there and don't do anything. 

Yeah, go exchange them for new ones. Spider said that they're supposed to go out and kill people while you're sleeping or something 🙄🙄🤔🤔🤣🤣

Mine have been sitting too long too Dolphster, I need to get in some target practice but I'm not sure what the ammo market looks like now.

Ammo market if fucked, hell it's worse than the actual gun market. I was on gundeals the other day and 100 rounds of CCI 22lr was listed for $19.99 + 11.99 SH. Probably get it cheaper at Walmart or Academy if you can find it in stock. Shit is insane

Ammo is ridiculous for sure.  I work for a federal law enforcement agency and our training center where about a dozen different agencies train recruits, additional training for the rest of us, etc. has had such a hard time getting ammo (even with a government contract which puts us to the front of the line with manufacturers) are having such ammo shortages that a lot of these newbies are having to train with simulators rather than with the real deal. 

non sequitur, I watched an interesting video about why there are shortages of things now, it mainly boils down to Just In Time supply chains and the lack of cargo containers being sent back to asia.

Due to the Buy American Act, zero rounds of ammunition that the federal government buys are made in Asia.  Just In Time inventory and manufacturing is partly to blame, but the overwhelming reason for the shortage is due to lunatics who have been stockpiling personal ammo since the Obama administration because they are thoroughly convinced that the government is going to come take their guns and ammo.

Don't forget that the NRA is above all else, a trade group for gun and ammo manufacturers. They're out to sell guns and ammo to make money. That was their goal all along.

I think Biden is going to break Obama's record as the worlds top selling gun and ammo salesman. If he would just shut the fuck up about trying to take away people's rights the situation would level out

I don't disagree with you on that one.  I've never been a fan of the NRA and have found most of the things they do to be much more about being self serving than actually doing anything for the "rights" of gunowners. 

Yeah, that is fairly accurate.  I can see the current administration pushing through something similar to the 1994 Act and addressing "high capacity" magazines.  But there will never be any super serious anti gun legislation passed because the gun lobby is just too strong and way too many voters from both parties are gun owners.  And like everything else, it all comes down to votes for politicians. They care a lot more about getting re-elected than they do about their "causes".   They talk a big talk about gun legislation to appease their base constituency, but it also has the unintended effect of creating a rallying point which unifies the pro gun people.  I remember seeing advertisements during Obama's presidency for T shirts with his picture on it and it said, "Gun Industry Salesman Of The Year" which was pretty accurate. 

There is nothing they can really do about magazines. "High capacity" magazines is a myth. 30 round magazines are standard capacity. If they want to ban magazines over 30 rounds. I would be willing to listen, but more than likely oppose it because it really doesn't fix anything.

The next problem you have with a magazine ban is that there are too many out there after Obama's 8 years. And I can't imagine that they wouldn't grandfather magazines already owned and produced. Statistically speaking, mass shootings and shootings with rifles in general is a small percentage of gun deaths. It's a red herring to scare the public into supporting more gun legislation. If they were really serious about gun deaths, they would fix places like Chicago, Baltimore, and Jackson across the country. That would drop the numbers down tremendously. It's just disingenuous lip service from the anti American liberals.

That was all scare tactics by the gun lobby in order to sell guns.  Obama wasn't a threat to guns.  It was all bullshit.  They just wanted to get hillbillies to stockpile ammunition and guns as a commodity.

Of course it was bullshit.  That was my point.  He was never going to do anything significant about guns.  Everything he said was rhetoric to appease his constituency. If you go back and watch them, Obama gave quite a few speeches in which he postured about the US "needing to do something about guns".   Although he never had any intention to actually do anything.   But people don't have much use for facts in our society.  The unintended effect of everything Obama said resulted in the hillbillies doing exactly what you said.  They perceived his words as a legit "threat" so they started stockpiling and they have never stopped. 

He played his part. When you make demeaning comments about "clinging to guns and religion" directed at small town America. There's going to be a reaction. If the Democrats want "common sense" gun legislation, they might try using some actual common sense.

I understand what you are saying.  But I wasn't saying how I felt about the possibility about banning any type of magazine.  I was just stating what I could see the current administration doing.  And thanks for explaining to me what a "high capacity" magazine.  8 years of military service and 16 years of law enforcement and I never had any idea!  (sarcasm)   LOL  

Proving conclusively that President Obama cared about human life, as the only thing in human history that has intentionally killed more people than guns...is religion.

That's the ironic thing about the whole situation. All the liberal drama and rhetoric about AR15s, assault weapons, ghost guns, and weapons of war is contributing to the problem, not helping it. I wonder how many of these stockpiled guns slip through the cracks and wind up in a criminals hand and/or killing someone. If they would focus on the criminal element and enforce the current laws on the books instead of flapping their gums about restricting the rights of law abiding Americans, you wouldn't have people hoarding and stockpiling so much shit.

I know what you're saying. But the explanation was for the people around here who got their firearm knowledge from Rambo and Lethal Weapon.

Oh I know, hence the LOL in my comment.  I was just messing with you. 

Yeah, he cared about people not getting killed by guns by contributing to the problem by putting millions upon millions of more guns on the street with his pandering nonsense.  

Anyhow, here in America we have the 1st and 2nd amendment that guarantee the right to freedom of religion and right to bear arms. It's what the country was founded on. If you don't like it, don't own a gun or practice religion. Otherwise you can pack your shit and leave. Spider claims Denmark is a good place to go. Good luck on your journey.

So you're for banning all semi-automatic firearms? Is that your position?