The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Seriously ... what is the benefit of remaining one country? If this country is as divided as it appears then why not split so that each can do their own thing? Personally I think liberals will move into he conservative country as they are currently flocking from liberal states but it doesn't matter. If you want no one to carry a gun, and to kill babies, make everyone gender neutral, support terrorism and unlimited free drugs then why would you want to live with those that do not? Why does everyone want to "make" others live like they want them to?


I swear we should adopt two charters and let states decide which one they want. Then people can move to that state or stay if it suits their needs.

Wouldn't it be much simpler to live with the ones who think like you do and then you can visit the crazy relatives whenever you like ... just like visiting Canada.  

I don't think your question is fairly worded at all and sounds more like troll bait.

Pretty much the way I saw it as well.

One thought on that non-proposal... If Conservative states seceded from the union and had to create for themselves, the top-rated TV show in those states would be old Hee-Haw reruns.

The simple answer is that the conservative states are takers and rely on the liberal state taxes to survive all the while complaining about it. Red america would go broke and devolve into an english speaking mad max style wasteland.

Problem is that while the country is divided it isn't like there really aren't states where everyone is conservative or liberal.  Even in conservative states at least 40% are liberal and in liberal states at least 40% are conservatives.

This country is on the brink of another civil war, only this time it will be the Left vs the Right.

As a CA resident, I can answer this question:

If we split the country so that liberal states and conservative states no longer have to fight with each other, what then happens to liberal counties in conservative states (and vice versa)?  Why should Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties be forced to remain in the same state as the panhandle counties (potentially in a new super-conservative nation, no less)?  Why should the rural parts of Northern and Central California be required to remain in a liberal socialist republic just because SF and LA want to?

Secession is always just a mechanism for pushing off the frustration of being in the minority to someone else.  There will always be a minority group that is out of power, and secession doesn't solve that.

edit: I mention being a CA resident because for over a decade, we've had libertarians in CA trying to push through a ballot measure to divide CA up into 3-6 states.  It's always a scam for those out of power to push their policy preferences on their neighbors who prefer the current governing philosophy.

That's what it was last time.

It actually wasn't but I can see how you can say that. I'm being dead serious. I know it's been that way for some time but from where I'm sitting it seems like half of congress and the country are always trying to put a stop to whoever is in power. Not that it makes the conservatives any better but I think the last 3 years has been the worst that it has ever been.

Pick a party and it so easy to see the same long term politicians fighting for the exact opposite position depending on who is in power. This just means politics is way more important than actual issues and the only people who win in this case is politicians.

With that said ... the people each is representing do not want to live like the other side so why should they be forced to?

I get that people of both live in both states but if states change people will move. It may take time but it will happen and besides ... there should be plenty of money from the political waste in arguing to "assist" people in relocating. Hell .. in the past people traveled the entire wilderness of a country with much less.  I also don't have an issue of South Florida breaking away form North Florida or California splitting up. Let people live like they want to live.

It's not like people aren't already free to move from one state to another that better matches their political tendencies, but you don't see that much, so why would it happen if states split up?

I think one thing people tend to forget is that because of the way elections and politics work, the split between democrat and republican (or any two major sides, if you look at other countries) is going to trend towards 50/50. If the population shifted in one direction over a period of time, you can bet that (one way or another) the political block being left behind would shift.

What's different this time around (not that it is historically unique) is that the shifting has been to more polarized positions. You can still have a roughly even split with the "weights" far from the middle. I tend to think this sort of polarization is helped by the two-party, winner-takes-all nature of the election system, but that's not going to change, so it is what it is.

If we did this, I wouldn't move away from Florida, anymore than I'd go move to some socialist country now.  This is my home.

I doubt there would be a whole lot of movement.  For all the folks who threatened in 2008 they would leave the country if Obama was elected or in 2016 if Trump very very few actually did.

People don’t move long distances for political reasons, the move for jobs, family, schools or weather. 

Naw, the two countries thing wouldn't work out, but California can secede and I'd be more than okay with it.

on a semi related topic, we should add states, DC and PR should absolutely be given statehood

Either that or their residents should be exempt from all federal taxes.  No taxation without representation. 

Is this a serious discussion or does everyone have their tongue planted firmly in their cheek? I don't mean to be sarcastic, but I can't help it. Like we could just split the country up even if we wanted to and like that would solve anything. It's not realistic in the least, so is everyone playing along like it is just for the sake of argument?

I bet there would be. The differences between democrat and republic are huge. If states really did live by the charter of their organizations you'd have no choice. I know many people who have bailed on Orange County and the City of Orlando specifically for how liberal they have become. It's why no Republicans will ever win. I also believe other than the current Governor that Republicans are doomed in this state. More people are moving here than any other state and they are coming from liberal states. It was already basically 50/50.  I'm a 5th generation Florida cracker but we're actually planning to move to Tn in about a year.

People in Austin haven't moved as is, and it's not like South Florida could secede with the Confederacy between it and the rest of the US.

Conservatives have moved out of Austin for the most part. Same as Ashville NC. It's another very liberal town in  a conservative state. It's easier to deal with when we are talking just a city or small area.

As far as South florida ... we aren't talking about being landlocked. We have to travel though Canada to Alaska but it's still part of us.

What we are essentially discussing is whether or not secession would be a good idea.  I generally regard such an argument as fundamentally hypocritical and insincere, for one basic reason: the people who argue that after the new realignment, the people who don't like it can just move... have not themselves already moved to a place that aligns with their political preferences.  I mean, if you really believe what you're saying, why haven't you already moved to Singapore (or Denmark, as applicable)?

You have it exactly backwards.  Why haven't all the Austin liberals moved out of Texas?

The annual migration of senior citizens from the blue states of NY & NJ to the red states of Florida and AZ is not politically driven.  It is weather driven.  Tangentially state income tax could be considered a political issue, but don’t pretend people are leaving Mass for North Carolina because of their aggressive stance against transsexuals.

People love tossing this around.  This isn't 1832 where people carry muskets any longer.  Most medium sized cities have better armed police than your local national guard, unless the guard is infantry or combat unit.  "The people" aren't rising up against anyone, no matter how many AR-15s are floating around. 

As far as "splitting the country" what, exactly, do people suggest?  Right leaning people all head to the east coast and everyone else go west and we just build a fence down through, say, Minnesota to mark it? 

And the civil war wasn’t individuals picking up muskets.  In the 1800s each army unit was from a particular state.  Todays army is made up of units of people from various states.  The reason why soldiers today don’t stay in the same unit or base for more than a few years is so their loyalty will remain with the USA rather than a particular unit, base or commander.  The only units that this doesn’t apply to is the National Guard.

No. I'm thinking  a state by state vote based on the split already in this country. you can vote for conservative or liberal ideas and whatever the state votes is what they follow. Liberal states can bring in all the illegals they want and conservative ones can send them out. I'm not saying we need to turn into North and South Korea but more like NC and SC where the tax base is completely different.   b  vAs well ... it would be so much better if I didn't have to have biased CNN propaganda thrown in may face all the time just as I'd expect liberals don't want to see FOX. In all reality it would be my goal to make people like Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow have to find real jobs and not just pump up the base with whatever excites them. If the base is all you have then life should be good.

Unless you can pull up something official that states this (which you can't), I'm calling BS on the entire point.

Nonsense.  The reason that military personnel PCS every few years is because of the military management mindset that personnel need to remain mobile, well trained, and prepared for career advancement.  It is part of the "up or out" philosophy of the military.  Not saying that I agree or disagree with this approach, but that is the reason that military personnel frequently move.  It has nothing to do with loyalty to the USA rather than a particular unit, base, or commander.  In fact, loyalty to the unit is preached quite frequently and the military encourages it. 

See my previous point about politics.

The one thing that is guaranteed to happen in a total-liberal or total-conservative country is a new fracture of the political spectrum, roughly right down the middle with politicians jostling for power. Just look at internal party politics for a window into this and consider how much worse it would be if there were no unifying goal (defeat other party).

The only way you get to the scenario you describe is through fascism or another top-down this-is-what-you-can-believe ideology.

That is the ultimate irony of all this: even if "successful," it still wouldn't actually work.

Let us suppose that this is somehow implemented.  While the new Confederate States of America would probably still be contiguous, the new Democratic People's Republic of America would have 4 or 5 separate partitions, at least one of which is landlocked and contained within the CSA.  (I'm not counting AK or HI, which are unchanged.) But setting aside this rather significant problem, both nations would quickly develop a familiar problem, as the Mitt Romney-John Kasich conservatives clash with the Donald Trump-Roy Moore conservatives, and the Bernie Sanders-Elizabeth Warren liberals clash with the Joe Biden-Chuck Schumer liberals, leading to calls for a new separation...

But they are much closer together in ideas and conversations can return. The problem with today's politics is its really Bernie/AOC vs people like Trump. The moderates don't even get the slightest say in anything. It's one extreme or the other so there is no conversations going on. That can't be good for any of us in the long run. Eventually blood is going to get spilled.

I think that there's another thing at play here:  city mouse vs. country mouse.

Not all cases, but in general, those who seek city living -- technology, culture, people, a faster-paced life -- generally going to lean more liberal.  If you want to move to NY City, cram into a subway, go to museums, be in the heart of the cultural melting-pot with lots of different kinds of people -- probably you're likelier to have more liberal values.

And if you're looking for a slower-paced life with neighbors that live far away, small town vibe, lots of space, hunting/fishing -- and you want to move to somewhere that has that, as well as people who look/think/align to you -- you're likely to be more conservative-thinking.

True, weather is certainly a reason for people exiting NYS.  But over the past 10 years the population of upstate NY has DECREASED, and that's not all weather related.  Upstate NY has a higher percentage of republicans vs. democrats, and many are fed up with high taxes and our extremely liberal governor, and therefore have chosen to leave the state.  Not to mention the continuing ongoing loss of manufacturing jobs over the last couple decades.  I've lived in upstate NY my whole life and I've never seen so many people leaving, or wanting to leave, because of the extreme liberal policies enacting by our governor.

As fyo explained, all you have to do is look at internal party politics to understand that this is not the case.  The Tea Party types despise the Republican establishment and did everything they could to defeat them, and the Berniecrats hate Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi more than they hate Trump.

The same battles will exist, just with the lines drawn in different places.

As an 18 year veteran I never would have known any of this.  Thanks for the history lesson.
;)

"Muskets" was a play on words, thanks for being literal in the analogy though.  If you would like to be precise it would be virtually impossible for the citizens to rise up the way they speak of, and the way the 2nd amendment is propped up.  Better?

Lecture from a visiting historian in college.   

Point is that the Civil War wasn't the equivalent of a bunch of yahoos with AR-15s.  Private firearm ownership (2nd amendment) wasn't what allowed the Civil War to occur.  The reason why Lee even had an army to command was there existed an Army of Northern Virginia made up of people from Virginia whose first loyalty was the STATE of  Virginia not the USA.  That doesn't exist anymore.  Today, the units based in Virginia are made up of people from all 50 states. 

They had units from all over. It was named for the region,  ot because they were all from  Virginia.

Virginia is going to be the test subject for this whole Civil War thing. That governor has gone crazy against gun owners. Supposedly he's even lied to create a "State of Emergency" to have guns banned from a pro gun rally. This is getting interesting.

Saw an article that armed militants were advancing on the State Capitol building and the Governor's Mansion.

I do not understand how gun advocates get all worked up about guns being banned from political rallies or sporting events, yet seem to have no problem with guns being banned from banks, or courtrooms, or meetings of the legislature.  I thought guns in the hands of every unlicensed, unvetted rando is supposed to make everyone safer?  Isn't a bank more secure if every person walking in off the street has an Uzi?

I certainly don't have a degree in history, but I can definitely tell you this: if there is another civil war and the National Guard is called in, they aren't going to be turned away with freaking handguns.  Ask any Palestinian: rockets beat bullets.

I love that "Crazy against gun owners" line. I'm picturing some frazzled dude in a bathrobe, running down the street screaming "Give me your guns!!"

The reality is a little more mundane, however. Democrats in that state now finally control the house, the senate and the Governor's office, and a senate committee just advanced four pieces of legislation for the full Senate to vote on. Those four pieces of legislation would do the following:

1) Require background checks on all firearms purchases
2) Allow law enforcement to temporarily remove guns from individuals deemed a risk to themselves or others.
3) Allow localities ban weapons from certain events and government buildings
4) Limit handgun purchases to one per month.

Yeah, that's just crazy stuff there. How in the world will those poor Virginians ever be able to stockpile thousands of guns with a Democrat in office?   :o   ::)   :o   ::)

Not that simple but I'm pretty sure you know that.
They recently pulled the AR -15 ban they proposed (although have already said it would come back) and the governor lied to create a State of Emergency. Not as innocent as you would pretend. 

1 basically requires you to register every gun purchase just like Nazi Germany. 2 allows for the govt to remove guns from anyone at any time. It's already happened to an innocent vet who was talking about his concerns at school where his daughter teaches. The waitress said he was talking about shooting up the school. The gov already lied to declare a SOE so it's logical to think he would do that on a larger scale. 4 That's just silly for so many reasons.

2 things .... 1 I agree with you and have said numerous times no one would rob a bank or anywhere else if everyone had a gun. 2 The national Guard will not attack it's own people in this day and age of America. Sheriffs in Va have already said they would deputize everyone in their county if a gun ban happens. Hell ... liberals have numerous laws they refuse to enforce so it's not like this is a new thing.

I swear, if they passed a "no jaywalking" law, you'd be up here screaming that those damned liberals don't want anyone crossing the street.  I do like the "like Nazi Germany" bit though...all it needed was some really dramatic "dunh-dunh-DUNH!" music in the background to make it perfect.


Not logical at all...but maybe he was just taking a cue from the President on that strategy?

Not at all. I have a huge history of installing mid block crosswalks and very much encourage people to use them as pedestrian deaths in this state are very unacceptable and trending in the wrong direction.

People still wouldn't use it, I regularly  see people just crossing 6 lanes of traffic instead of using the crosswalk that is 20 yards away.

I disagree, just make DC part of Maryland; they are too small to be their own State.  As for Puerto Rico just give them their independence if they want it, they are too screwed up to become a State.

If DC is too small, should we take statehood away from Rhode Island? ;)

Rhode Island is over 1,200 square miles while DC is only about 68. That's a huge difference. DC is just a city and not a large one. Jacksonville is like 840 square miles but still not close to RI. You'd have to go to Alaska to find a bigger city than RI. 

It never really occurred to me how freakin' huge those Alaskan cities of a few thousand people are. Then I looked at Google Maps it and it just seems arbitrary. Take Wrangell: 3rd largest city by area at over 2500 sq miles, population just over 2300. Then check the satelite maps. The city limits have pretty much nothing to do with where people live, so you could just take some shitty town in the middle of nowhere and arbitrarily expand the city limits.

Here is what I am trying to get across:

If you read what people post on line about the "importance of the second amendment" is to be able to rise up against a "tyrannical government."  This is always closely followed by some sort of (paraphrasing here) statement of "Hitler took everyone's guns in Germany and look what happened there."  Often, people even speak of this civil "rising" as the catalyst of a civil war; ordinary citizens with their small arms. 

I'm very well versed in the American Civil war; how / when / where.  I'm pretty well versed in the Syrian Civil War, the Colombian, Greek.  I served in the Bosnian War.  I understand.  I get it, I don't need a history lesson (and not, I'm not being defensive).  Just explaining. 

Under the right guidance and training between the dates of 1861 and 1865 a well armed group of semi trained to not trained to only enthusiastic civilians could take over a small artillery unit.  It took at least eight-nine men to load a single cannon after fire (those men are thus not engaged in battle), moving each one was difficult.

In 2020 under the right guidance and training a well armed group of semi trained to not trained only enthusiastic civilians would get decimated by a local policy SWAT unit, much less a deployed platoon.  It would be a bloodbath. 

Maybe my "muskets" statement is a little more clear now.  That was my entire, only, point. 

The whole "2nd amendment protects you from the government" idea is pure fantasy anyway.  (The idea that Jews in Nazi Germany would have been fine if only they had pistols is particularly demented.) As I've said before, if the gov't jackboots show up at your door to take you, it won't matter how many guns you have, and if you have the political power to prevent the government from taking you into custody, you never needed the guns in the first place.

Consider the following five scenarios:

1) Japanese citizens being rounded up in 1942
2) Branch Davidian compound in 1993
3) Bundy Ranch in 2014
4) Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in 2016
5) ICE roundups 2017-current

Do you think 1, 2, or 5 would turn out differently if the civilians had more guns?  Do you think 3 or 4 would have turned out differently if the civilians had fewer guns?  The answer to both is obviously no.

If you are a group that has political power, you don't need guns, and if you are group that doesn't have political power, there aren't enough guns to make a difference against the full force of the most powerful gov't in the world crashing on you.  Guns won't protect you from bombs falling from the sky (https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/05/18/407665820/why-did-we-forget-the-move-bombing).

If we do have a civil war, it's going to be decided by tanks and missiles, not handguns.

And very scary drones.

I just have a really hard time seeing police and then military attacking gun supporters regardless of who is in power. Police and military are overwhelmingly conservative and libertarian. Like I said ... sheriffs in Va have already said they would deputize every citizen.

If liberal politicians aren't supporting laws they choose not to I'm not so sure why you think conservatives would enforce laws they do not agree with to that extent.

Actually I think they would have turned out significantly different.  For example with #1 rather than the Japanese American being peaceful round up and detained for the length of the war, the armed resistance of a few would be seen as justification for extermination of many.

at this point they wouldn't be "gun supporters" they'd be "domestic terrorists threatening the public safety"

+1. 

NRA also considers it your constitutional right to own armor-piercing bullets.  Many in law enforcement even those who are republicans or libertarians understand why their nickname is “cop killers” and don’t want to face someone with such ammo. 

LOL .... you mean those people who let illegals go and then the illegals kill citizens?

It is well documented that undocumented aliens are actually less likely to commit crime than native born citizens. 

Who cares, they aren't supposed to be here to begin with.

I don't understand your comment. My point was that no matter who it is, whether is a bunch of snowflake liberals or a bunch of gunbro trumpers .. the minute they go against the government, they'll be labeled as domestic terrorists, they'll be referred to in that manner across every newscast in the country. the propaganda will be so overwhelming that any soldier or law enforcement type will shoot them without a shred of hesitation, or an ounce of guilt. and then be celebrated as heroes. and it won't matter one iota that they're good people or just "gun supporters" they'll get steamrolled.

Even though 100% of illegal aliens (the correct legal term as established by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. United States, 2012) have already committed a crime by entering the country illegally?

a majority of illegals enter the country legally

I am assuming you are referring to visa overstays which although not a federal offense, is a civil violation and handled in immigration court.  But they aren't the "majority".   More like around 40%.

I don't see your point.  I can enter a department store legally but hide somewhere and come out once they're closed, and it would be illegal.

Answer me this ... how many american citizens are you ok with being raped or killed in order to say its bad?

It happens all the time. Just happened a few days ago. Dude was released by NY police and 40 days later rapes and murders a 92 year old woman. Who knows how many other crimes he committed during that time?

Guyanese charged with killing and raping 92-year-old overstayed visa and dodged ICE detainer

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/guyanan-charged-with-killing-raping-92-year-old-overstayed-visa-dodged-ice-detainer

A 21-year-old Latin American man charged in New York City with raping and murdering a 92-year-old woman overstayed his 2016 tourist visa, a serious immigration crime that can lead to deportation and a complete ban from ever entering the country.

Federal law enforcement officials told Secrets late Wednesday that Guyanese Reeaz Khan's illegal status is what prompted them to ask city police to detain him for deportation after his arrest on Nov. 27 for assaulting his father with a broken ceramic mug.

But, instead, the city followed Mayor Bill de Blasio’s “sanctuary city” policies for illegal immigrants and released him, ignoring the detainer request from Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Sounds like you're saying that conservatives and libertarians have little to fear from the government, regardless of how many guns they have.  But if you're not a conservative/libertarian, well, your family might end up in a "detention center"... and the number of guns you have won't prevent that.

Again: if you belong to a politically powerful constituency, you don't need guns to protect you from the gov't, and if you don't, guns won't help.  I assure you that had the New Black Panther Party staged a hostile armed takeover of a federal law enforcement building, the feds would have rained ordnance on them and they wouldn't have gotten a month of play-acting first.  Same goes for any NBPP member who dared train a rifle on federal law enforcement agents.

That question doesn't make sense.  If illegal immigrants commit less violent crime than legal residents, we are statistically safer (in terms of crime rates) with them in the country.  For example, if women commit less violent crime than men, it doesn't make sense to push for draconian punishment for violent female criminals by asking how many victims are acceptable; we should ask that about the men first.

If the goal is to reduce violent crime, we should be spending less on deporting immigrants and more on locking up citizens.