What if the U.S. was divided into Liberal & Conservative?
27 Oct 2018, 6:02 am
Also the conservatives would eventually conquer the liberal states and make them live how they want. That’s what happens when one group has guns and the other believes no one should have guns.
anybody who thinks they can try that with me will have another think coming.
Huh?
How will you stop an invading army without guns?
there are many ways to outwit people with guns. guns are a brute-force thing, that is possible to finesse. I know somebody who is a martial artist who before you could blink could disarm you.
How’s he going disarm a sniper hundreds of feet away in a bush that he doesn’t even know is there?
Guns are abiut distance, hand to hand requires closeness.all those trainings to disarm people require the be close to you which is unrealistic for anything besides mugging. And are you going creat a army of martial artists?
as long as you are going to fight dirty like that, you will live and I will die which is ok with me as I would not knuckle under to your horatio alger nonsense and live like a brute.
In a fight for your life there is not such thing as honor. Sniping is a normal part of warfare. Hand to hand is 12th century warfare.
I don’t believe person insults are allowed
I do not live like s brute just cause I own guns. Sorry I lack the strength or ability to fight so I’ll keep my gun to protect my life from violent Antifa people and criminals who seek to hurt me.
27 Oct 2018, 7:06 am
We tried that once. The dividing border was established by Jeremiah Dixon and Charles Mason.
It didn't go well (particularly for the conservatives).
Besides, there is no 'Liberal' party in the United States; only ultra-conservative, neo-Fascist, and full-blown, frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic fringe. But no 'Liberals'. Dwight Eisenhower would be considered too liberal to get the Democratic nomination for president today. 40 years ago, nobody would've called Bernie Sanders a Socialist; he would've been considered a rather run-of-the-mill Democrat. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would've been considered conservative Republicans.
27 Oct 2018, 1:03 pm
It didn't go well (particularly for the conservatives).
Besides, there is no 'Liberal' party in the United States; only ultra-conservative, neo-Fascist, and full-blown, frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic fringe. But no 'Liberals'. Dwight Eisenhower would be considered too liberal to get the Democratic nomination for president today. 40 years ago, nobody would've called Bernie Sanders a Socialist; he would've been considered a rather run-of-the-mill Democrat. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would've been considered conservative Republicans.
The racist democrat party got its ass kicked so they changed their way to trick people into thinking they aren’t racist so they can control all the minority’s while stuffing their pockets. This plan of theirs was super successful.
27 Oct 2018, 2:29 pm
Nonsense.
42 years ago, Carter defeated Ford. Carter was considered a moderate at the time, and the challengers to his left were the likes of Mo Udall and Henry M. Jackson. I find it hard to evaluate Udall by modern standards because the issues he campaigned for are now mainstream Democratic concerns - for example, protection of the environment and regulation of tobacco. Jackson, on the other hand, seems to be a fairly uncomplicated neoconservative in the McCain mould - supportive of government programmes, particularly when that programme is "investing way too much into the military" or "keeping Japanese-Americans in camps".
Like Carter, Ford was also considered a moderate within his party compared to Reagan. He was opposed to Roe vs Wade, which would be unthinkable in a modern Democratic presidential nominee. He was probably more liberal than any Republican presidential contender for a good while, despite the trappings of his time, but he was not liberal by Democratic standards.
As for Eisenhower, he instigated the "Lavender scare" in which thousands of government employees were fired for suspected homosexuality. That would not be remotely acceptable to the Democratic Party today and frankly would scare off half the Republican Party. He then campaigned for Richard Nixon rather than John F. Kennedy; needless to say that Kennedy was essentially the ideological forbearer of Obama and the Clintons and if he were alive today would probably have very similar views to them, while Nixon was deeply conservative.
Obama and Clinton are much more liberal than any of the serious politicians of the time. They support LGBT+ rights. 40 years ago homosexuality was still illegal in most states and Ford hedged when asked for his views (his private views were more liberal). Imagine Ford supporting Obama and Clinton's stances on trans rights! Unthinkable. They are also much more pro-trade than the Democratic Party has historically been. They are more outspoken on feminist issues. They went much further on environmental issues than Udall ever did (he didn't really have a concept of "global warming"). They wanted to expand healthcare radically, and Clinton also wanted to expand access to tertiary education radically. They both supported immigration liberalisation in the face of political opposition (although not public opposition). On things like paid leave and profit sharing, I'm not guaranteeing that Clinton would stack up to every radical lefty ever but she was pretty far left (although of course "left" and "liberal" are not interchangeable).
Similarly, I think it's fair to say that Bernie Sanders is significantly to the left of the likes of Udall and Ted Kennedy. Yes, it's ridiculous to call the guy a socialist when he's just a particularly stupid social democrat, but let's not pretend there's ever been a time in American history when his views were mainstream.
27 Oct 2018, 3:01 pm
It wouldn’t work. Except maybe in small population samples.
Peoples’ ideologies are just too complex.
One is usually liberal/conservative as a reaction to personal/family circumstances, rather than set ideology.
I know someone who is only conservative because he feels liberals would take away his guns. Otherwise, he’s pretty much a liberal, despite “hating” all liberals.
27 Oct 2018, 3:21 pm
What I came into this thread to say was:
1) No matter whether it was divided arbitrarily (but fairly) or along existing political lines, "blue" America would probably be the best country in the world by a distance. "Red" America would basically be a giant version of Poland - strong industry and rich in natural resources, but rather moralising and intolerant and generally seen as backward by the rest of the west.
2) Personally, I think arbitrarily dividing the country in two is boring. I would divide it as follows:
- In the North West, the border starts with Whatcom County on the blue side and Okanagan County on the red side and runs down through Washington and Oregon along county lines.
- At the California border, the border veers east to take in Washoe County, Nevada. It then follows the California border down to Clark County, Nevada.
- I'd tempted to lasso La Paz County, Arizona, and head north to give Denver - and indeed most of Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico - to the Blue side. I suspect that a mathematical calculation would say that I should, as most of the counties around here are quite purple. But I know that the rest of my map is going to be kind to the blue side, so I think Red should keep this area.
- Instead, Blue gets the border counties, plus Grant (NM), Culbersome, Reeves, and Jeff Davis (all TX).
- In SE Texas, the border runs from NE Val Verde to Kleberg.
- I'm giving Red a stretch of coast from here to New Orleans, which means sacrificing Dallas, Houston, and Travis County. Suspect these cities would experience significant brain drain but they'll still be great places to live.
- Wow, the Deep South is much bluer than I thought... I can't, in good conscience, cut off everything between Corpus Christi and Wilmington. From New Orleans, my border runs through Jackson, Memphis, Montgomery, Columbus, Atlanta, Augusta, and Charlotte. Those cities, and occasionally their surrounding areas (particularly in Atlanta), are on the blue side.
- There's a Red enclave that runs from just north of New Orleans to Pascoe Co., Florida. It bulges up into Georgia but doesn't get any of the East Coast. It does get Tallahasee.
- The main border heads north east until it hits Delaware County, NY, at which point it sharply turns towards Buffalo.
- The likes of Columbus, Cincinnati, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and Indianapolis are on the red side of the line despite being heavily blue.
- There's a Blue enclave in the Midwest. The southern border takes in Chicago and Des Moines, and the borders run north from those cities to the Canadian border.
- Hawaii goes to Blue and Alaska to Red.
That gives the Blue country four continuous territories and the Red countries three. On one hand, fewer territories should be an advantage. However, the Blue country has almost the whole coastline, the entire Mexican border, and a large portion of the Canadian border, which gives it a significant trade advantage. Geopolitically, blues are disproportionately located in strategically important areas, whereas reds tend to live in the middle of nowhere.
27 Oct 2018, 3:59 pm
1) No matter whether it was divided arbitrarily (but fairly) or along existing political lines, "blue" America would probably be the best country in the world by a distance. "Red" America would basically be a giant version of Poland - strong industry and rich in natural resources, but rather moralising and intolerant and generally seen as backward by the rest of the west.
2) Personally, I think arbitrarily dividing the country in two is boring. I would divide it as follows:
- In the North West, the border starts with Whatcom County on the blue side and Okanagan County on the red side and runs down through Washington and Oregon along county lines.
- At the California border, the border veers east to take in Washoe County, Nevada. It then follows the California border down to Clark County, Nevada.
- I'd tempted to lasso La Paz County, Arizona, and head north to give Denver - and indeed most of Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico - to the Blue side. I suspect that a mathematical calculation would say that I should, as most of the counties around here are quite purple. But I know that the rest of my map is going to be kind to the blue side, so I think Red should keep this area.
- Instead, Blue gets the border counties, plus Grant (NM), Culbersome, Reeves, and Jeff Davis (all TX).
- In SE Texas, the border runs from NE Val Verde to Kleberg.
- I'm giving Red a stretch of coast from here to New Orleans, which means sacrificing Dallas, Houston, and Travis County. Suspect these cities would experience significant brain drain but they'll still be great places to live.
- Wow, the Deep South is much bluer than I thought... I can't, in good conscience, cut off everything between Corpus Christi and Wilmington. From New Orleans, my border runs through Jackson, Memphis, Montgomery, Columbus, Atlanta, Augusta, and Charlotte. Those cities, and occasionally their surrounding areas (particularly in Atlanta), are on the blue side.
- There's a Red enclave that runs from just north of New Orleans to Pascoe Co., Florida. It bulges up into Georgia but doesn't get any of the East Coast. It does get Tallahasee.
- The main border heads north east until it hits Delaware County, NY, at which point it sharply turns towards Buffalo.
- The likes of Columbus, Cincinnati, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and Indianapolis are on the red side of the line despite being heavily blue.
- There's a Blue enclave in the Midwest. The southern border takes in Chicago and Des Moines, and the borders run north from those cities to the Canadian border.
- Hawaii goes to Blue and Alaska to Red.
That gives the Blue country four continuous territories and the Red countries three. On one hand, fewer territories should be an advantage. However, the Blue country has almost the whole coastline, the entire Mexican border, and a large portion of the Canadian border, which gives it a significant trade advantage. Geopolitically, blues are disproportionately located in strategically important areas, whereas reds tend to live in the middle of nowhere.
In your reference to Poland, I wonder how the majority of the Polish citizenry feel about their lives? Do they, for instance, feel it's an oppressive country to live in? Does the general population feel "stuck" and would they flee in a heartbeat if they were able to do so, financially?
Or, does the average Pole like living there? Is the average Pole proud of their country?
I'm asking rhetorically since I don't know the answers. IF the average Pole does like living in Poland, the opinions of the rest of the EU/world as to what kind of country Poland is or is not would be irrelevant to Poles who like where they live.
I actually know a man who emigrated from Poland to the U.S. about twenty years ago. I only see him about four times a year, but I will ask him if Poles today generally view their country positively or negatively. He goes back there to visit family several times per year. I enjoy asking him questions about Poland since I have some Polish ancestry.
The point of this thread is simply to postulate on advantages and disadvantages of like-minded people living together in their respective communities rather than living next to each other, not whether on side would or would not be viable.
Avoid thought lines in this thread that resemble in any way:
A "red" side would be bad or would never work because.......(Or vice versa). That's missing the point of the thread. If "red" inhabitants liked living 'in the middle of nowhere', it doesn't matter a fig what "blue" inhabitants of the "blue" side think of those "red" inhabitants. Why would a "blue sider" waste ANY energy thinking about what the "red siders" were doing on the red side??
Last edited by Magna on 27 Oct 2018, 4:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
27 Oct 2018, 4:13 pm
Yes, that's precisely why I picked it out - it's a bit of an island which realistically has to be lumped in with the red surrounding it.
In your reference to Poland, I wonder how the majority of the Polish citizenry feel about their lives? Do they, for instance, feel it's an oppressive country to live in? Does the general population feel "stuck" and would they flee in a heartbeat if they were able to do so, financially?
Or, does the average Pole like living there? Is the average Pole proud of their country?
I'm asking rhetorically since I don't know the answers. IF the average Pole does like living in Poland, the opinions of the rest of the EU/world as to what kind of country Poland is or is not would be irrelevant to Poles who like where they live.
I actually know a man who emigrated from Poland to the U.S. about twenty years ago. I only see him about four times a year, but I will ask him if Poles today generally view their country positively or negatively. He goes back there to visit family several times per year. I enjoy asking him questions about Poland since I have some Polish ancestry.
The point of this thread is simply to postulate on advantages and disadvantages of like-minded people living together in their respective communities rather than living next to each other.
The great thing about the EU is that people can live anywhere in the country they wish, barring practical restrictions and a few trivialities. Poland has one of the highest outflows of people in the EU. There is a great deal of despondency but also enough conservativism, particularly within the political system, to stop things getting much better.
On the other hand, Hungarians generally seem to be proud of how terrible their terrible, terrible country is. Think of Hungary as the Mississippi of Europe, except with literal full-on fascists in government. Much less emigration, and the political decision is between two parties who alternate between being very conservative and fascist. Also not nearly as wealthy as Poland.
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,697
Location: the island of defective toy santas
Tollorin
Veteran
Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
28 Oct 2018, 3:11 pm
Also the conservatives would eventually conquer the liberal states and make them live how they want. That’s what happens when one group has guns and the other believes no one should have guns.
The blue side won't necessary be against a armed force; at least not as a defense option. The red side, however, will most likely be ruined economically, which would give the advantage to the blue side.
Guns are worth nothing in conventional warfare if there is no mean to be backed up by artillery and logistics while the other side don't has that problem.
What would work for the red side, in some way, is suicide bombing.
_________________
Down with speculators!! !
28 Oct 2018, 3:38 pm
Eventually conquer the blue states?? Does anyone in their right mind who lives in Wisconsin wish to go to war with and conquer Minnesota today?? I don't know where this war stuff is coming from in dividing the U.S. into two parts, of which the inhabitants of each love where they live and who they live around. The premise of this thought exercise is that those living on a side could/should care less what the other side does or doesn't do since their beliefs and rules wouldn't affect you.
Why would you care what the "other side" was doing on their own side?
28 Oct 2018, 4:12 pm
I would have to move sooner than expected.
Because I don't want to die, so no liberals for me,
And I don't want all my rights stripped away so no conservatives for me.
I firmly believe both red and blue are full of crap. At least right now they have to, sort of, work together- ish.
_________________
Diagnosed autistic level 2, ODD, anxiety, dyspraxic, essential tremors, depression (Doubted), CAPD, hyper mobility syndrome
Suspected; PTSD (Treated, as my counselor did notice), possible PCOS, PMDD, Learning disabilities (Sure of it, unknown what they are), possibly something wrong with immune system (Sick about as much as I'm not) Possible EDS- hyper mobility type (Will be getting tested, suggested by doctor) dysautonomia
28 Oct 2018, 6:50 pm
Also the conservatives would eventually conquer the liberal states and make them live how they want. That’s what happens when one group has guns and the other believes no one should have guns.
The blue side won't necessary be against a armed force; at least not as a defense option. The red side, however, will most likely be ruined economically, which would give the advantage to the blue side.
Guns are worth nothing in conventional warfare if there is no mean to be backed up by artillery and logistics while the other side don't has that problem.
What would work for the red side, in some way, is suicide bombing.
The red side will do quite well as the blue side will shut down and tax out any business.
The left is anti gun with some wanting even the military to be disarmed. They won’t be signing up to use guns to kill people. Most the current military will go to the red side along with all their guns and weapons.
Most manufacturing is in red states most farms are in red areas. Some reason liberals don’t farm. What will the blue side eat? What will give them power to run their computers so they can rant online? Who will ship their goods? Who will police their towns?
Who’ll build stuff for them? Most construction workers or labor people are conservative. Sure they can import slave labor via illegal immigrants but for how long? And once the tech companies bail out then what?
And when most the labor force is illegal immigrants who will the collect taxes from?
Sorry bet the liberals policies lead to disaster. There was a skit where two worlds run by republicans or democrats and both were post apocalyptic wasted lands. Democrats looked good at first until their hologram failed.
