Would the U.S. be happier split along polarization lines?

[ivwshane]

You don't think that has anything to do with the fact that California has 12% of the population? That is 50% more than the next most populous state.

And your point would be what exactly? Do you not understand why he was posting that info?

 

[rudeguy]

There are too many lines of too many kinds to ever split along them unless you create 300 M individual countries.

I like the way you think.


All hail me. The new king of rudeguyland!!

 

[BoberFett]

Sorry to burst your bubble.
Food Facts

California has been the number one food and agricultural producer in the United States for more than 50 consecutive years.



More than half the nation's fruit, nuts, and vegetables come from here.

California is the nation's number one dairy state.

California's leading commodity is milk and cream. Grapes are second.

California's leading export crop is almonds.

Nationally, products exclusively grown (99% or more) in California include almonds, artichokes, dates, figs, kiwifruit, olives, persimmons, pistachios, prunes, raisins, clovers, and walnuts.

That's all well and good until the red states cut off your water supply... :sneaky:

 

[ivwshane]

That's all well and good until the red states cut off your water supply... :sneaky:

Not a problem, we are already working to fix that

http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article3017597.html

 

[Londo_Jowo]

That's all well and good until the red states cut off your water supply... :sneaky:

And electricity

 

[Mxylplyx]

Since farmers are overwhelmingly conservative, the liberal country would starve to death.

Thats like saying we wouldnt have iPhones if it werent for the Chinese, or clothing if it werent for Indonesia. The liberal states generate more than enough wealth to purchase food.

 

[rudeguy]

Not a problem, we are already working to fix that

http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article3017597.html

Don't mean to hijack this thread but this really interests me.

How far are they into the project? Any idea what kind of volume it will be able to handle? I'm assuming multiple locations as well? Are they able to be upgraded later on to handle more volume?

Somehow this seems like Star Wars stuff to me. We live in an age of wonder!

 

[Art&Science]

Say somehow you could engineer a non-violent separation of the country along political lines. Those with conservative views would form one country and those with progressive views into another, with relatively equal division of resources. The two separate countries would live in peaceful non-interference with each other. Would we all be happier in that situation, or just repolarize ourselves within even finer gradients of our own ideologies? "Oh you're not (conservative/progressive) enough" in a race to the furthest possible extremes?

Hard line conservitards and librultards are only about 15-20% of the country.

I vote we take those people and put them in their own country on the moon and the rest of us can stay.

Most of P&N falls into this 15-20% moron category so I assume you guys won't like this idea.

 

[Newell Steamer]

The two separate countries would live in peaceful non-interference with each other.

So, the OP was pretty clear - separate, no one fucks with one another. And, what does this turn into? Each side fucking with one another.

Anyway, I think a division would not work, in the long run. Each side would turn onto it's own moderate people within. And, eventually, the moderates would probably then turn into the opposite side.

For me, Liberal Land (aka Obama's Super Fun Heaven On Earth Where We Thank Obama For Being So Fucking Awesome All Day Erday), I would want to own & carry a handgun (conceal or not, I don't care). And, I would be perfectly OK with owning, as well as anyone else, a handgun. However, the 'pure' Liberals would be opposed to that... or, so I am told by everyone who hates liberals.

Now, crime would still exist in Liberal Land. As well as murders. And, there would be Liberals who would want to push for gun rights to own a firearm, for protections. Everything else, would be beloved patriot dory (eating the fetuses of aborted babies, enslaving white people - you know, the usual MO of Liberals), so the question then becomes, would the citizen of Liberal land feel so passionate about owning a gun (or any other contrary view point) where they migrate to Conservative Land?

I honestly don't know.

And, I don't think a physical separation based on political ideology would even be feasible,.. since most Americans don't even fucking vote.



So, there would be 3 separate countries:
- Liberal Land
- Conservative Land
- Moderate Land

Also, conservatives (the extreme ones) already sort of have their own land; gated compounds and bank accounts in foreign countries.

 

[Spungo]

Wasn't separating along state lines the whole point of having state lines? There's no reason to have 50 states if they're all exactly the same. Some states should have gay marriage, some states should have no income tax, some states should have no sales tax, some states should have universal healthcare, some states should have completely privatized healthcare.

Why does everyone insist on getting up everyone else's ass? If one state wants legal marijuana, they should have it. Any federal agents caught hassling marijuana producers should be arrested by state officials and thrown in state prison for violating state laws. If one state wants to ban abortion, they should have that right.

 

[fskimospy]

Wasn't separating along state lines the whole point of having state lines? There's no reason to have 50 states if they're all exactly the same. Some states should have gay marriage, some states should have no income tax, some states should have no sales tax, some states should have universal healthcare, some states should have completely privatized healthcare.

Why does everyone insist on getting up everyone else's ass? If one state wants legal marijuana, they should have it. Any federal agents caught hassling marijuana producers should be arrested by state officials and thrown in state prison for violating state laws. If one state wants to ban abortion, they should have that right.

States are allowed to experiment with certain things, but not others. As SCOTUS is likely to rule, states aren't allowed to violate the 14th amendment by banning gay marriage. They also aren't allowed to ban abortion, as the federal constitution guarantees the right to that as well and federal trumps state. The other things you mentioned are all things states could do if they wanted.

As for throwing federal officers in jail, the opposite would happen. The supremacy clause is very clear on that issue. Any state that attempted to unlawfully imprison federal officials would, if anything, find themselves imprisoned if they kept at it long enough.

I think all drugs should be legal, but states trying to unlawfully imprison federal officials isn't a good way to get there.

 

[fskimospy]

So, the OP was pretty clear - separate, no one fucks with one another. And, what does this turn into? Each side fucking with one another.

Anyway, I think a division would not work, in the long run. Each side would turn onto it's own moderate people within. And, eventually, the moderates would probably then turn into the opposite side.

For me, Liberal Land (aka Obama's Super Fun Heaven On Earth Where We Thank Obama For Being So Fucking Awesome All Day Erday), I would want to own & carry a handgun (conceal or not, I don't care). And, I would be perfectly OK with owning, as well as anyone else, a handgun. However, the 'pure' Liberals would be opposed to that... or, so I am told by everyone who hates liberals.

Now, crime would still exist in Liberal Land. As well as murders. And, there would be Liberals who would want to push for gun rights to own a firearm, for protections. Everything else, would be beloved patriot dory (eating the fetuses of aborted babies, enslaving white people - you know, the usual MO of Liberals), so the question then becomes, would the citizen of Liberal land feel so passionate about owning a gun (or any other contrary view point) where they migrate to Conservative Land?

I honestly don't know.

And, I don't think a physical separation based on political ideology would even be feasible,.. since most Americans don't even fucking vote.



So, there would be 3 separate countries:
- Liberal Land
- Conservative Land
- Moderate Land

Also, conservatives (the extreme ones) already sort of have their own land; gated compounds and bank accounts in foreign countries.

I think the main reason it wouldn't work is that the real cleavages aren't between states but between urban and rural communities. Liberal land would still have a ton of conservatives in it and vice versa.

 

[QuantumPion]

Conservative/liberal separations happen in many places. What ends up happening is the liberals ruin their side with their crazy policies, then flee to the conservative side, where they vote for the same crazy policies they fled from to begin with. This is particularly evident with the Maryland/Virginia border - making Virginia progressively more blue than it has been while Maryland continues to fall apart.

 

[fskimospy]

Conservative/liberal separations happen in many places. What ends up happening is the liberals ruin their side with their crazy policies, then flee to the conservative side, where they vote for the same crazy policies they fled from to begin with. This is particularly evident with the Maryland/Virginia border - making Virginia progressively more blue than it has been while Maryland continues to fall apart.

Sort this list by median income:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income#States_ranked_by_per_capita_income

Odd that with liberals ruining their side with crazy policies that all of the top 10 states for median income but one are solidly blue. Can you explain this?

 

[dank69]

Sort this list by median income:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income#States_ranked_by_per_capita_income

Odd that with liberals ruining their side with crazy policies that all of the top 10 states for median income but one are solidly blue. Can you explain this?

LMSM bias

 

[rudeguy]

Sort this list by median income:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income#States_ranked_by_per_capita_income

Odd that with liberals ruining their side with crazy policies that all of the top 10 states for median income but one are solidly blue. Can you explain this?

What?

New Jersey?
Alaska?
Maryland?
Mass?

 

[QuantumPion]

Sort this list by median income:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income#States_ranked_by_per_capita_income

Odd that with liberals ruining their side with crazy policies that all of the top 10 states for median income but one are solidly blue. Can you explain this?

I dunno, it's hard to tell since that list is not normalized by cost of living and is therefore useless in that regard. Having an income of 50,000 in New York is not better off than making 40,000 in Alabama. But if I had to answer, I'd say it's the myth widely held by lower class democrats that if they keep voting for old-money rich government crony democrats, one day they too can become a rich crony democrat.

 

[fskimospy]

What?

New Jersey?
Alaska?
Maryland?
Mass?

What are you asking about? As for the states you named:
New Jersey is #2 on that list. It went to Obama by 18 points in 2012.

Alaska is the one red state I was talking about.

Maryland is #1. Went for Obama by about 26 points.

Massachusetts is #6. Went for Obama by about 23 points.

The closest states on that list are Virginia and New Hampshire, but both went for Obama by about 5 points.

 

[rudeguy]

What are you asking about? As for the states you named:
New Jersey is #2 on that list. It went to Obama by 18 points in 2012.

Alaska is the one red state I was talking about.

Maryland is #1. Went for Obama by about 26 points.

Massachusetts is #6. Went for Obama by about 23 points.

The closest states on that list are Virginia and New Hampshire, but both went for Obama by about 5 points.

OOohoooohhhhh! I thought you were talking about the governors. That makes a lot more sense!

Fucking rudeguy. What a dumbass

 

[fskimospy]

I dunno, it's hard to tell since that list is not normalized by cost of living and is therefore useless in that regard. Having an income of 50,000 in New York is not better off than making 40,000 in Alabama. But if I had to answer, I'd say it's the myth widely held by lower class democrats that if they keep voting for old-money rich government crony democrats, one day they too can become a rich crony democrat.

Of course it's not useless, you just don't like what it tells you.

Regardless, I wasn't asking you why you thought the states were blue. You said that liberals ruin wherever they live, yet it seems like people who live in liberal areas are making considerably more money. How do you square this with liberals having 'ruined' those places if they are so successful?

 

[QuantumPion]

Of course it's not useless, you just don't like what it tells you.

It tells you nothing. You are just starting with a pre-conceived notion and fitting facts to suit your theory. I'd have to say it looks like red states are winning out for the most part. From the Bureau of Economic Analysis: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/rpp/rpp_newsrelease.htm

Regardless, I wasn't asking you why you thought the states were blue. You said that liberals ruin wherever they live, yet it seems like people who live in liberal areas are making considerably more money. How do you square this with liberals having 'ruined' those places if they are so successful?

They are successfull at being societal parasites and becoming rich by way of government. Note the link between median income, size, influence, and proximity to government power, and high cost of living. It's not a coincidence. What exactly does Washington D.C. produce? What are their exports?

 

[BoberFett]

Of course it's not useless, you just don't like what it tells you.

Regardless, I wasn't asking you why you thought the states were blue. You said that liberals ruin wherever they live, yet it seems like people who live in liberal areas are making considerably more money. How do you square this with liberals having 'ruined' those places if they are so successful?

Ruin seems to be a subjective word. To a conservative, banning guns and raising taxes is ruining. To a liberal, banning gay marriage and raising idiots is ruining.

It's really the core of the problem. Everyone seems to want to make every square inch of the country into what they value, rather than being happy with their own little corner of the world, and anyone who disagrees is an enemy rather than a different person with their own wants and desires. It's why I'm all for more local government and less federal government.

 

[fskimospy]

It tells you nothing. You are just starting with a pre-conceived notion and fitting facts to suit your theory. In reality, there does not appear to be a clear link between red/blue states and income. From the Bureau of Economic Analysis: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/rpp/rpp_newsrelease.htm

That is a picture that describes percent change in income in a one year period. It does not say anything about what their incomes are.

They are successfull at being societal parasites and becoming rich by way of government. Note the link between median income, size, influence, and proximity to government power, and high cost of living. It's not a coincidence. What exactly does Washington D.C. produce? What are their exports?

Blue states are generally net contributors to tax income.

Here's a picture. Blue states are those who contribute more federal tax income than they give and red colored states are those who get more than they give.

If you were going to make that argument it's pretty clear the red states are the 'societal parasites becoming rich by way of government.'

 

[fskimospy]

Ruin seems to be a subjective word. To a conservative, banning guns and raising taxes is ruining. To a liberal, banning gay marriage and raising idiots is ruining.

It's really the core of the problem. Everyone seems to want to make every square inch of the country into what they value, rather than being happy with their own little corner of the world, and anyone who disagrees is an enemy rather than a different person with their own wants and desires. It's why I'm all for more local government and less federal government.

I agree! I'm mostly just messing with him because he said something ridiculous.

 

[QuantumPion]

If you were going to make that argument it's pretty clear the red states are the 'societal parasites becoming rich by way of government.'

You are accusing poor black democrats in the south of being parasites? How offensive of you. You're such a bigoted racist. You should be ashamed.

Seriously though, just because a state is red does not mean it contains 100% republicans, nor does it say anything about what portion of what political group consumes government handouts. All that proves is that the democrats who live in red states take more benefits from republicans than democrats who live in blue states take from other democrats.