The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Basically issues like the stupid arguments made in this forum have more and more people wanting two different countries. It's both liberals and conservatives and not only the extreme of either side. I saw a "prediction" yesterday that our country will be torn apart and will cease to exist as a super power by 2040. In the past I would have laughed but it is scary real in today's US.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9789389/Two-three-Republicans-South-support-SECEDING-survey-finds.html

Good riddance...Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.

We'll be fine -- we just have to correct.  We're on a weird trajectory with the GOP -- I know it's the same thing and you think I'm nuts, but they're not a functioning party with a political ideology.

But that will correct.  We gotta get past the cult of personality / grievance politics and they'll re-adopt some small government stuff again.  There needs to be that push/pull for our country to work correctly.


Side note:

I can see the parties flipping, in terms of support from minorities.  Right now, the general consensus is that the GOP is the party for white dudes and the Dems are the coalition of everyone else, but when you look at the actual social issues, if the GOP could get rid of the xenophobic stuff, I think they could take over and win on those issues.

The rest of the world -- Caribbean nations, Black, Spanish, Asian -- they're pretty socially conservative, religious, superstitious, traditional-family oriented and not all that trusting of government authority.  If you combine those messages with personal freedom and limited government, I think the GOP could be the dominant percentage of the population again. 

Haven't you heard, the GOP is all for personal freedom and small government except for the cases of marriage,  military,  reproduction,  marijuana, etc.

I can't believe that the GOP didn't latch on to marijuana legalization 10 years ago.  It was there for the taking.  Trump should've pushed it.  It is such a winning cause and his base would have liked it.

CF, I saw that article too.  I'm typically skeptical of polls to begin with, so I have to think that those numbers are fairly inflated.  Honestly I have neither the time nor the care to invest any time looking into the details of how the poll was conducted, but those numbers just seem pretty high to me.

It's also cherry picking who it's talking about.  Liberals in the west, Conservatives in the South -- it's not full demographics of those who would actually be involved in the secession.

I didn't think of that, but I agree with you. 

I don't put any credence into the actual numbers but it does point to a growing feeling of separation.  I think we are more fractured now than we have been since the Civil War and it seems to be getting worse and not better. We are so far apart on what should be normal situations that it can feel hopeless.

Even though for political reasons Trump is supposedly in love with Putin Republicans are pretty consistent in hating communism and support the fall of Cuba while BLM and Biden's people seem to think it's our fault for making it hard on the nice communist government. That's not only weird to me it grosses me out because I can't relate to it. The people being prosecuted in Cuba and even China are carrying American flags so obviously they aren't blaming us for upsetting their leaders. I don't get it.

since when is russia or china communist ? They're pretty good examples of extreme authoritarian capitalism

at this point the united states is way more socialist than china or russia

Trump is a teetotaler isn't he?

Perhaps you have forgotten the target demographic of the war on drugs.
There is zero chance the GOP runs on legalization.  You might as well wish for them to run on "small government" in the bedroom.

I'd say this poll is worded to engineer a particular result.  The exact question asked was:

“Would you support or oppose (your state) seceding from the United States to join a new union with (list of states in new union)?”

Here are the sets that were offered:

- Pacific: California, Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, and Alaska
- Mountain: Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico
- South: Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee
- Heartland: Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, and Nebraska
- Northeast: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, and the District of Columbia

Given that choice, the following image should not be surprising:

(http://brightlinewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/secession_unions_pid_overall-1024x843.png)

Look at the numbers for Republicans in the West or Northeast.  Look at the numbers for Democrats in the other three regions.  As I've said before, this "solution" wouldn't actually solve anything; it would just shift grievances around slightly and create a new class of people who feel politically disenfranchised.

As are at least 90% of all polls on any topic.  As the old saying goes, "Follow the money."   Whoever initiated and funded any poll is who the questions will be geared towards benefitting.  That is one of the many reasons why I am always skeptical of polls and don't put too much stock in them. 

Yeah, I get it, but there was a choice to make.

There was a "both parties" thing on "think of the children" type of bullshit, between censoring music to worrying about weed.  Everyone was falling over themselves in the 90s to be tough of that stupid shit.  But we're pretty much past that now, everyone realizes weed is not worth putting people in jail for and that nobody should give a shit what someone writes a rap song about.

It's just odd that the party of "don't control me, I don't want to wear a mask" is also the anti-weed party.  It just makes so little sense, ideologically.

The Dems are super dumb about it, too.  They were on the wrong side of a lot of that bullshit for a while, but are correcting some.

It makes absolutely perfect sense, for exactly the same reasons that addicts to street drugs are dangerous criminals who need to be locked up, while addicts to prescription painkillers are unfortunate souls who deserve our sympathy and help.

There is no ideological consistency on the right.  The pro-life party is the pro-death penalty party, the pro-freedom party is the ban gay marriages party, the pro-America party is the "Better to be a Russian than a Democrat" party, the pro-family values party worships a thrice-married serial adulterer who bragged on tape about assaulting women.

I've never heard or read where anyone has ever said or written street addicts are dangerous criminals who need to be locked up while addicts to prescription painkillers are unfortunate souls who deserve our sympathy and help.  Can you share with us where you got that information?

You often paint with a very broad brush in your description of the "right".  There are definitely plenty of conservatives who do fit your description, but probably less than half.  I'm assuming that you consider me to be "on the right".  Correct?  But I'm pro death penalty AND pro abortion rights.  I think gay people should have the exact same marriage rights as straight people.  Hell, I've attended two gay weddings myself. I've never heard one person on the right say "Better to be a Russian than a Democrat:.   And I can assure you that the vast majority of the right does not "worship" the thrice-married serial adulterer who bragged on tape about assaulting women.  Most of the people who voted for him held their nose when they cast their ballot for him.  That is what I did the first election and the second election I didn't vote for him at all. 

Fox News: The Great Marijuana Ruse (https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/bill-oreilly-the-great-marijuana-ruse)

The left believes American law enforcement targets African-Americans for drug prosecutions. Therefore, they want drug sales to be categorized as nonviolent offenses and marijuana to be legalized. It's about race not drugs. [...]

Drug use and sales have devastated poor neighborhoods in this country. Let's take New York City for example. In 1990, there were 2,245 homicides in this town -- an average of six per day. In 2013, there were 335 homicides. So what happened? Under Mayor Rudy Giuliani the New York City Police cracked down on open drug use and sales. And those convicted of selling drugs were given much harsher sentences by the state of New York. No one disputes the murder rate was driven by the drug trade as gangs shouted out all over the city.

But now the left wants to go soft on drug use and criminal sentencing. Apparently the "New York Times" and others want to go back to the good old days where there were six murders daily in the nation's largest city. That's just insane.

National Review: Nuance on Opioid Addiction (https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/nuance-on-opioid-addiction/)

Did policy makers and public-health experts correctly assess who was at risk of becoming addicted to opioid medications? Were their views on the addictive potential of such drugs realistic? Did they anticipate the consequences of policies devised to constrain doctors from overprescribing? In retrospect, policy makers seriously misjudged the answers to these questions, overestimating the risk that these drugs posed to the average patient while simultaneously doing too little to urge clinicians to identify those most vulnerable to addiction.

Let me specifically point out that I'm not nutpicking here: these are from the most watched cable news outlet in the country, and one of the longest-running and most respected conservative news publications.   If I went digging through random right-wing blogs, I assure you I could find a lot worse.

From an OH Trump rally in August 2018: (https://www.cleveland.com/open/2018/08/photo_of_trump_supporters_t-sh.html)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dj2e0w9VAAAraKs?format=jpg&name=small)

Donald Trump has an 88% favorability (https://civiqs.com/results/trump_favorable?annotations=true&uncertainty=true&zoomIn=true&party=Republican) rating among Republicans, 6 months after leaving office.
They're not holding their noses, they're cheering wildly.

I appreciate you taking the time and effort to offer up examples of people saying those things.  When I said that I personally didn't know anyone who felt that way or that I personally had never heard anyone say that, I should have clarified that I wasn't saying that ZERO people have ever said that.  I simply meant exactly what I said, that I personally had never seen or heard that.  The fact that Fox news puts out some moronic things doesn't mean that everyone watching agrees.  As with most polls, I'm EXTREMELY dubious of the poll you cited which states that 88% of Republicans currently have a favorable rating of Trump right now. I don't even like the term "favorable" being used in polls as it is a pretty useless term.  If someone asks me if I like Rocky Road ice cream and I say, "Well, I don't hate it."   That could be construed as a "favorable" response in a poll.  Way too much ambiguity in the term favorable. 

I should have added in my original response to your post that what you described as the mentality of the vast majority of conservatives is actually the mentality of the religious zealots within the conservative realm.  That used to be a large percentage of the Republican party but it is shrinking daily.  To say that that group is representative of the totality of the Republican party is no different than when the right wingers say that Bernie Sanders represents the totality of the Democratic party.  Joe Biden is much more representative of the majority the Democrat party than Bernie Sanders.  Just as someone like George Bush is more representative of the Republican party than Donald Trump.  And before you say it, I know that almost 100% of Republicans voted for Trump and that is because they were voting for the party, not the person.  Just like almost 100% of Democrats voted for Biden because they were voting for the party.  Trump got a lot of votes simply because he wasn't Hillary Clinton in 2016 just like Biden got a lot of votes in 2020 simply because he wasn't Trump. 

1 - If 100% of republicans vote for trump if he's nominated in 2024, does it matter if they approve of him or don't. Voting for trump is an explicit endorsement of all of trump.

2 - In my view it's sad that a majority of democrats are more on the biden side than the sanders side. Very disappointing.

Of the Democratic candidates, Biden was my 2nd to last of the field (Bloomburg was dead last).  But I must admit that I'm much happier with Biden than I thought I would be.

I really want ranked choice voting.  I think that can help both parties a lot.

I'm a registered Republican (although I consider myself much more Libertarian leaning) and if Trump is nominated in 2024, 100% of Republicans won't vote for him because I am not going to vote for him. :)    I understand your reasoning of saying that voting for Trump is an explicit endorsement of all of Trump.  But I don't necessarily agree with you.  Have you agreed with 100% of the platform of everyone that you have ever voted for?  Maybe I misinterpreted the point you were making but that was what it seemed like you were saying.

And of course you find it sad that a majority of Democrats are more on the Biden side than the Sanders side if you are a Sanders guy.  Everyone feels that way when their preferred candidate doesn't get the nomination of their party.  I voted for Jo Jorgensen (Libertarian) in the 2020 election and was disappointed that more Republicans who didn't like Trump weren't willing to vote for Jorgensen.  Of course she had no chance of winning, but if enough Republicans voted for her, it would have sent a message to the RNC even if we agreed with SOME of Trump's policies, his extremely asshole personality and disenfranchising of our closest allies was not something that we felt represented what we felt the party should be. 

In 2016, I would have voted for pretty much anyone against Hillary.  But in 2020 I wasn't willing to vote for Trump just as an anti-Biden vote because in spite of his speeches and rhetoric sounds like, he is much more middle of the road in his actual policies and voting record in Congress (if you want to know where any politician stands, stop listening to what they say and research their voting records on bills) and the fact that in spite of what he says, he is pro business.  As someone looking to retire in less than 5 years, stock market performance is very important to me in this stage of life. 

What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter if you don't agree with 100% of a platform, or if you vote for the "lesser of two evils". If you vote for someone in a representative democracy you are saying that you trust their judgement and you approve of their decisions. From that point, you as a voter are complicit in what they do, because you gave them that power.

I was responding to your point here:
In that it doesn't matter whether the group of religious zealots or conspiracy nuts are representative of the totality of the GOP, they all voted the same way. So really to me it's a distinction without a difference.

I think your view of the Republican Party is incredibly unrealistic and, quite frankly, divorced from reality.  I'd say you are stating what you would like the GOP to be about, but that simply isn't the case:

- Fox News is overwhelmingly in lockstep with GOP orthodoxy
- Among Republicans, President Donald Trump is the most popular politician since the invention of polling
- The number of what you refer to as "religious zealots" is not shrinking; it has fully enveloped the GOP and currently has complete control of the party (manifest in Trump himself)

The idea that more Republicans identify with George Bush than Donald Trump is so bizarre that I'm unsure how to respond.  Jeb Bush is a political corpse, eviscerated by none other than Donald J. Trump.  Where is this supposed constituency of Bush Republicans?   This quote from CF says more than I could ever hope to:


Now, as far as polling goes, you can say that you don't trust the polling I provided, but do you have any sort of polling - any polling at all! - to support these claims you've made?

Lastly, as for one Bernie Sanders:
Bernie was blown out in two consecutive presidential primaries.  Jesse Jackson came closer to winning the nomination in 1988 than Bernie did in 2020.  It's ridiculous to compare him to Trump, who easily dispatched an enormous GOP field in 2016 and ran virtually unopposed in the 2020 GOP primary.

I hope you are wrong about the GOP, but I will admit that most of the people in my social circle are much more fiscally conservative and socially liberal.  So granted, I may have underestimated the power of the "religious right" within the GOP simply because that is something that I personally don't see much because I tend to steer clear of those types of people.  

No, I don't have any polling to support the "claims" that I made.  If you look at pretty much EVERY political post I make here, I specifically say something to the effect of "in my opinion" or "from what I observe myself".   If I cherry picked and looked under enough rocks, I'm sure I could find polls that support my comments.  But since I distrust all polls because of how they are conducted, that would make me pretty hypocritical to then try to use polls to support my opinions, don't you think?   I despise hypocrisy so it would be pretty shitty for me to condemn polls and then dig up some polls that support my positions.  

I will grant you the point you made about the Trump v Sanders comparison. Honestly, I didn't think about the fact that Sanders wasn't even much of a factor in the Dem primaries and Trump ran away with the GOP primary.  That was a bad comparison for me to make and you were right in your correction of me.  Kudos also on using a picture of a couple of guys who look like single digit IQ yahoos as your proof that every conservative goes with the "better Russian than Democrat" idea.  I will give you credit that you are excellent at cherry picking comments and using props to to make your gross generalizations seem more legit.  CF tries to do the same type of thing from the conservative perspective, but you are better at it.

To be clear:

I cited several examples to make a statement about the nature of today's conservatives.  If you had said that those are just extremist elements, we would be having a different conversation.  But instead, you went with "Who said this?" "Who said that?" "I've never heard this." So it's not hard to find some of the examples I had in mind when I made the original statements in the first place.

I don't think it's really "cherry picking comments" when I respond to your skepticism of my own statements.

Fair enough regarding your first paragraph above.  I think probably both of us were not completely clearly understanding what the other was getting at.  That is one of the pitfalls of trying to have a conversation like this in this type of format rather than a verbal discussion where we can ask for clarification in "real time". 

My cherry picking comment wasn't really intended as a shot at you.  We all do that to one extent or another in discussions because obviously everyone wants to focus on things that support their position to the greatest degree. It is just another pitfall of discussions in this type of format.  If we didn't kind of pick and choose what we were responding to, everyone's posts would be agonizingly long and not particularly effective.  I'm sure that everyone's discussions here would be a lot easier and productive in person rather than via posts on a forum.  For being pretty much polar opposites on a lot of topics, I'm actually surprised (and pleased) that you and I are able to be civil in our discussions and I think we both at least make some type of effort to try to at least understand where the other is coming from even if we disagree with each other.