Political Discussion

[TenderLovingKiller®]

No Lockdown
No Masking
No Vaccine

you can only pick 2

 

[Chucktshoes]

I know that, sadly, COVID is a political issue, but we do have a thread specifically dedicated to it.

But my two cents in here: You can spit out numbers and statistics about how few children are seriously affected by the virus, but the fact remains children have and are dying, they are getting sick and bringing it home to their families. No one wants to wear masks and social distance for the rest of our lives, and I assume very few people enjoy getting vaccines. But if doing something small like wearing a mask, and getting vaccinated lowers the chances of even ONE child not dying or getting severely sick then spouting rhetoric about "living your life" and "not living in fear" is not only callous, but selfish.

It wasn't meant to be a forever thing, if everyone had followed guidelines for that short time we were all in actual lockdown, and enforced testing and quarantine for travellers things would be back to a place of normalcy already. But selfish, shortsighted, people made this what it is. Florida and Texas are seeing the sharpest rise in cases in children under 12. The more kids get it and pass it to other kids, the more significant that percentage becomes. Being okay with those consequences because you don't "live in fear" is irresponsible. It affects other people. You're making that call for other people, not just yourself, that's my issue with that take.

It's like smoking cigarettes in a room full of children.

Once again “think of the children” when coming from the left has absolutely zero weight because the left has absolutely zero standing on that front from the perspective of folks on the right.

Not only that, but when someone on the left uses that argument, the hairs on the back of the neck raise up and folks go on full alert looking for the sneaky authoritarian bullshit that must be coming down the line.

 

[RenegadeMonster]

One of the things I have noticed at my apartment complex over the course of the last year and half or so (COVID times) is a lot of the cars in the parking lot now have plates from different states.

Lots of Maryland, New York, PA, New Jersey, Illinois, Delaware, Florida plates. I have even seen Alabama. Probably more than 1/3 of the cars here now have out of state plates.

Pre-covid, there was only ever one at any given time. And usually a close neighboring state like New Hampshire.

I wonder if all these people moved from cities because of the pandemic and work remotely options, or if something else is in play?

 

[Max Sterling]

Once again “think of the children” when coming from the left has absolutely zero weight because the left has absolutely zero standing on that front from the perspective of folks on the right.

Not only that, but when someone on the left uses that argument, the hairs on the back of the neck raise up and folks go on full alert looking for the sneaky authoritarian bullshit that must be coming down the line.

As a Canadian, and someone who is personally pro-life (but doesn't know or understand enough to feel like I can or should make that decision for others), I take exception to your blanket "you're on the left you can't say that" nonsense. And the "but think of my freedoms" argument means nothing to me coming from someone on the right.

 

[Chucktshoes]

As a Canadian, and someone who is personally pro-life (but doesn't know or understand enough to feel like I can or should make that decision for others), I take exception to your blanket "you're on the left you can't say that" nonsense. And the "but think of my freedoms" argument means nothing to me coming from someone on the right.

I’m not saying you can’t say it. I’m stating that it’s an argument that is counterproductive as in, it doesn’t resonate in the way you think it should or would. I can also accept that some things folks on the right say don’t translate to you in the same ways either.

These sorts of differences in language and culture are part of why I don’t believe there is any path towards reconciliation, politically or otherwise, possible. When I say things like “it’s time for this country to consider an amicable divorce” it’s made from a sincere belief that it is the better and safer course of action.

 

[Max Sterling]

These sorts of differences in language and culture are part of why I don’t believe there is any path towards reconciliation, politically or otherwise, possible. When I say things like “it’s time for this country to consider an amicable divorce” it’s made from a sincere belief that it is the better and safer course of action.

This is interesting to me. What would this divorce look like to you? With the majority of major cities leaning one way and rural America leaning the other, what, in your mind does an amicable breakup of America look like?

 

[yukbon]

Once again “think of the children” when coming from the left has absolutely zero weight because the left has absolutely zero standing on that front from the perspective of folks on the right.

Not only that, but when someone on the left uses that argument, the hairs on the back of the neck raise up and folks go on full alert looking for the sneaky authoritarian bullshit that must be coming down the line.

The amusing thing about this is that the right has exactly zero credibility when it comes to that for the kids bullshit either. "No abortion! For the kids! " but no childcare, no head start, no food programs, no school programs, college, Healthcare, anything other than just being born it's straight no, fuck'em, do not pass go do not collect $200 do not get tax credits, once you're born just go die quietly out of sight. To anyone slightly to the left of frothing religious nutjobs, it's plainly a sexist manipulation tactic to control women. If it were even remotely about children, there would at least be some prenatal care provisions or something. But the only thing that seems to matter is making women have the babies, whether they want to or not, or whether they'll be ok afterwards or not.

 

[Chucktshoes]

This is interesting to me. What would this divorce look like to you? With the majority of major cities leaning one way and rural America leaning the other, what, in your mind does an amicable breakup of America look like?

I’m not smart enough or arrogant enough to think that I know what will work. So please have a bit of grace with me as I am sure I’m bound to cock up this answer in myriad ways, but I’m working on broad strokes here. I’ve arrived at this place because the concept of federalism has failed and the lizard people in DC exercise more and more control over what goes down in the individual states.


A good baseline to start with is imagine Balkanization without so much ethnic cleansing.

Obviously AK and Hawaii would go their own ways.

I’d figure the left coast would do its own thing, though I would expect some wars of secession as much of the rural areas would do their damnedest to join the new countries formed by the neighboring states. Large chunks of the land mass of those states want nothing to do with the coastal cities, but those cities absolutely must retain the ag areas if they don’t want to starve to death. This will be a reoccurring theme throughout. It would also be very difficult for the coastal cities to retain control of any territory to the east of the mountain ranges.

Idaho, MT, WY, some or all of the Dakotas and Nebraska would likely form a nation. Biggest question there is what the Native American tribes will choose to do. Do they go fully independent? Do they align with the states for economic reasons? I cannot even begin to guess. Which leads me to the next area as it would be dealing with the exact same issue.

Utah, most of Nevada, along with chunks of Arizona and Colorado would become a Mormon theocracy.

The rest of Arizona, New Mexico, I’m not sure. More questions of Native Americans and what they would choose to do arise.

Texas, is of course, Texas. I imagine OK, Parts of NM and even maybe parts of wester AR and LA would throw in with them.

The South would be the South, thought I don’t know how LA would really go. Do they throw in with the South or Texas? I have no idea. I do think that VA could lose a chunk of NoVA to the northeast.

Missouri is a wildcard. Do they go with the south or with the Midwest? Maybe even Montana through MN and all the way down to MO? Some border states between regions are a bit of a toss up. Especially ones with unique cultural populations.

The Midwest: Minnesota(?), Wisconsin(?), Iowa, I see joining with the rust belt. Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania (tossup with northeast, maybe split).

Northeastern states would likely fly together (to the relief of the everyone else) with the exception of Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire. Were a true Balkanization to occur, I think odds are better than even they would seek to join Canadia.

This would cause some serious realignment in how certain cities are made up going forward. The one that sticks out to me the most is Denver. It’s very isolated culturally from the surrounding area. Does it attempt to exert power and influence on where it lands, become an independent city-state, or does it experience a mass outward migration thus returning it to the kind of place it was 50 years ago?

It would absolutely cause massive amounts of migration as folks who maybe could tolerate certain things until retirement (nobody retires and moves to the northeast) find those options disappearing and decide to cut bait.

Like I said, spitballing broad brushstrokes here. I know I’ve clocked up plenty here. I just believe that we are far too big and far too diverse culturally and politically to make things work much longer.

 

[Chucktshoes]

The amusing thing about this is that the right has exactly zero credibility when it comes to that for the kids bullshit either. "No abortion! For the kids! " but no childcare, no head start, no food programs, no school programs, college, Healthcare, anything other than just being born it's straight no, fuck'em, do not pass go do not collect $200 do not get tax credits, once you're born just go die quietly out of sight. To anyone slightly to the left of frothing religious nutjobs, it's plainly a sexist manipulation tactic to control women. If it were even remotely about children, there would at least be some prenatal care provisions or something. But the only thing that seems to matter is making women have the babies, whether they want to or not, or whether they'll be ok afterwards or not.

This ridiculous argument was dispatched over 170 years ago.

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

Frederic Bastiat, The Law

 

[yukbon]

This ridiculous argument was dispatched over 170 years ago.


Frederic Bastiat, The Law

This is a poor and (in my opinion) dumb argument. There are things that need to be done at scale, there are some circumstances where the small group needs the large group to provide. If you need non-educational/healthcare examples, infrastructure like roads and military are two that come to mind that tend to be popular with conservative voters. Disaster recovery. Pandemic/epidemic response. These just do not work on a local scale. There are things that must be done at a scale so large that realistically, the only way to do it is via government or by a private enterprise that is so large it may as well be a government. And the problem with private enterprise at that scale is lack of accountability. I have never understood the blanket anti-government stance that some people have in the US. It is, after all, self-government. The government is us.

Re bastiat quote, There is no state-run education in the United States -- there are federal guidelines: "you must meet these basic requirements", but this is not the haunting specter of state-run indoctrination that is meant when people say "state-run education".

Also, to call anything in the USA "socialist" is to grossly misunderstand what that word means. It has a meaning and it isn't "someone who disagrees with me". There are factions on the liberal spectrum that can be considered socialist -- Bernie Sanders' views on education come to mind -- but when I hear someone complain about socialism or leftists I know I can safely ignore anything they say, because it's all going to parrot whatever talking points they heard on fox or newsmax. There are no leftists of note in the United States beyond possibly Bernie.

 

[yukbon]

This would cause some serious realignment in how certain cities are made up going forward. The one that sticks out to me the most is Denver. It’s very isolated culturally from the surrounding area. Does it attempt to exert power and influence on where it lands, become an independent city-state, or does it experience a mass outward migration thus returning it to the kind of place it was 50 years ago?

Denver is a microcosm of every state that has a country/metropolitan divide. The large cities where groups are forced to mix by necessity are, by and large, diverse and multicultural and more liberal-leaning. In FL, Miami, Orlando, Key West and to a lesser extent, Tampa/St. Pete and Jacksonville. The rest of the state is deep, deep red. With the exception of CA and NY, where it's reversed and you have pockets of conservatism in a larger area of blue-tinged liberalism, I think this trend follows in most states.

 

[Max Sterling]

I’m not smart enough or arrogant enough to think that I know what will work. So please have a bit of grace with me as I am sure I’m bound to cock up this answer in myriad ways, but I’m working on broad strokes here. I’ve arrived at this place because the concept of federalism has failed and the lizard people in DC exercise more and more control over what goes down in the individual states.


A good baseline to start with is imagine Balkanization without so much ethnic cleansing.

Obviously AK and Hawaii would go their own ways.

I’d figure the left coast would do its own thing, though I would expect some wars of secession as much of the rural areas would do their damnedest to join the new countries formed by the neighboring states. Large chunks of the land mass of those states want nothing to do with the coastal cities, but those cities absolutely must retain the ag areas if they don’t want to starve to death. This will be a reoccurring theme throughout. It would also be very difficult for the coastal cities to retain control of any territory to the east of the mountain ranges.

Idaho, MT, WY, some or all of the Dakotas and Nebraska would likely form a nation. Biggest question there is what the Native American tribes will choose to do. Do they go fully independent? Do they align with the states for economic reasons? I cannot even begin to guess. Which leads me to the next area as it would be dealing with the exact same issue.

Utah, most of Nevada, along with chunks of Arizona and Colorado would become a Mormon theocracy.

The rest of Arizona, New Mexico, I’m not sure. More questions of Native Americans and what they would choose to do arise.

Texas, is of course, Texas. I imagine OK, Parts of NM and even maybe parts of wester AR and LA would throw in with them.

The South would be the South, thought I don’t know how LA would really go. Do they throw in with the South or Texas? I have no idea. I do think that VA could lose a chunk of NoVA to the northeast.

Missouri is a wildcard. Do they go with the south or with the Midwest? Maybe even Montana through MN and all the way down to MO? Some border states between regions are a bit of a toss up. Especially ones with unique cultural populations.

The Midwest: Minnesota(?), Wisconsin(?), Iowa, I see joining with the rust belt. Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania (tossup with northeast, maybe split).

Northeastern states would likely fly together (to the relief of the everyone else) with the exception of Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire. Were a true Balkanization to occur, I think odds are better than even they would seek to join Canadia.

This would cause some serious realignment in how certain cities are made up going forward. The one that sticks out to me the most is Denver. It’s very isolated culturally from the surrounding area. Does it attempt to exert power and influence on where it lands, become an independent city-state, or does it experience a mass outward migration thus returning it to the kind of place it was 50 years ago?

It would absolutely cause massive amounts of migration as folks who maybe could tolerate certain things until retirement (nobody retires and moves to the northeast) find those options disappearing and decide to cut bait.

Like I said, spitballing broad brushstrokes here. I know I’ve clocked up plenty here. I just believe that we are far too big and far too diverse culturally and politically to make things work much longer.

Thank you for answering. This sounds absolutely terrible to me, but I get where it's coming from. Having lived in rural Canada, rural Georgia, and now in the greater metro Atlanta, visited some of the larger US cities for extended periods of time and some other countries, it's interesting to see and experience all these different views people have.

I'm of the mindset that people of different backgrounds and ideologies should live and work together for the betterment of humanity as a whole. I understand that's a pipe dream to someone of your ideology, but what you suggest to me sounds like war, forever. War over resources, land, infrastructure. No one would ever grow or advance and if they did, it would cause more war as those around them would want what they have. Travelling becomes perilous, families become torn apart by distance not just opinions. There's less incentive for discourse and nationalism becomes the norm.

 

[TenderLovingKiller®]

I’m not smart enough or arrogant enough to think that I know what will work. So please have a bit of grace with me as I am sure I’m bound to cock up this answer in myriad ways, but I’m working on broad strokes here. I’ve arrived at this place because the concept of federalism has failed and the lizard people in DC exercise more and more control over what goes down in the individual states.


A good baseline to start with is imagine Balkanization without so much ethnic cleansing.

Obviously AK and Hawaii would go their own ways.

I’d figure the left coast would do its own thing, though I would expect some wars of secession as much of the rural areas would do their damnedest to join the new countries formed by the neighboring states. Large chunks of the land mass of those states want nothing to do with the coastal cities, but those cities absolutely must retain the ag areas if they don’t want to starve to death. This will be a reoccurring theme throughout. It would also be very difficult for the coastal cities to retain control of any territory to the east of the mountain ranges.

Idaho, MT, WY, some or all of the Dakotas and Nebraska would likely form a nation. Biggest question there is what the Native American tribes will choose to do. Do they go fully independent? Do they align with the states for economic reasons? I cannot even begin to guess. Which leads me to the next area as it would be dealing with the exact same issue.

Utah, most of Nevada, along with chunks of Arizona and Colorado would become a Mormon theocracy.

The rest of Arizona, New Mexico, I’m not sure. More questions of Native Americans and what they would choose to do arise.

Texas, is of course, Texas. I imagine OK, Parts of NM and even maybe parts of wester AR and LA would throw in with them.

The South would be the South, thought I don’t know how LA would really go. Do they throw in with the South or Texas? I have no idea. I do think that VA could lose a chunk of NoVA to the northeast.

Missouri is a wildcard. Do they go with the south or with the Midwest? Maybe even Montana through MN and all the way down to MO? Some border states between regions are a bit of a toss up. Especially ones with unique cultural populations.

The Midwest: Minnesota(?), Wisconsin(?), Iowa, I see joining with the rust belt. Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania (tossup with northeast, maybe split).

Northeastern states would likely fly together (to the relief of the everyone else) with the exception of Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire. Were a true Balkanization to occur, I think odds are better than even they would seek to join Canadia.

This would cause some serious realignment in how certain cities are made up going forward. The one that sticks out to me the most is Denver. It’s very isolated culturally from the surrounding area. Does it attempt to exert power and influence on where it lands, become an independent city-state, or does it experience a mass outward migration thus returning it to the kind of place it was 50 years ago?

It would absolutely cause massive amounts of migration as folks who maybe could tolerate certain things until retirement (nobody retires and moves to the northeast) find those options disappearing and decide to cut bait.

Like I said, spitballing broad brushstrokes here. I know I’ve clocked up plenty here. I just believe that we are far too big and far too diverse culturally and politically to make things work much longer.

You end up with a lot of landlocked nations in the middle of the country and most of the money and people on the coasts. Also, major cuts in federal aid that come from the richer state/nations. Much of this country would fall back to 3rd world status and battles for resources, especially water as global warming intensifies would be vast. There would lots of terrorism from people unhappy with how things were split up. That doesn’t even take into account the sway that other Countries would gain now that all of US Military and Monetary power being divided up. This sounds, IMO much worse than Federal gridlock.

 

[Chucktshoes]

It is, after all, self-government. The government is us.

We have very different world views, but this statement out of everything else you wrote in that post stick out to me the most. It is the single most untrue statement in the entire thing.

When it comes to the subject of the federal government, it is not us, because there is no “us” at all. There are two reasons for that.

First, unless the “us” in question is large multinational, multi-billion dollar corporations, then the federal (and some states) government does not represent “us”.


Secondly, regardless of the fact that you and I may technically be citizens the same country, there is only you and I, there is no “we”, no “us”. I find the worldview you hold, the political results you seek to be utterly abhorrent and repulsive. There are lines you and most others here seek to cross to which I am fully and completely of the view that violence is the only acceptable answer. (No I won’t be specific.)


So no, the the government most assuredly is not “us”.

 

[Chucktshoes]

You end up with a lot of landlocked nations in the middle of the country and most of the money and people on the coasts. Also, major cuts in federal aid that come from the richer state/nations. Much of this country would fall back to 3rd world status and battles for resources, especially water as global warming intensifies would be vast. There would lots of terrorism from people unhappy with how things were split up. That doesn’t even take into account the sway that other Countries would gain now that all of US Military and Monetary power being divided up. This sounds, IMO much worse than Federal gridlock.

Gridlock only lasts so long, after that is inevitably violence. So, yeah. Violence is inevitable regardless.

 

[Chucktshoes]

Denver is a microcosm of every state that has a country/metropolitan divide. The large cities where groups are forced to mix by necessity are, by and large, diverse and multicultural and more liberal-leaning. In FL, Miami, Orlando, Key West and to a lesser extent, Tampa/St. Pete and Jacksonville. The rest of the state is deep, deep red. With the exception of CA and NY, where it's reversed and you have pockets of conservatism in a larger area of blue-tinged liberalism, I think this trend follows in most states.

I would say this is essentially correct. Where I see the difference in a place like Denver is it’s proximity (or lack thereof) to other likeminded places and also the recent nature of its swing. How long has Denver been the way it is, and how much of that is to do with inward migration from other places that would reverse if the situation changed?

 

[Chucktshoes]

Thank you for answering. This sounds absolutely terrible to me, but I get where it's coming from. Having lived in rural Canada, rural Georgia, and now in the greater metro Atlanta, visited some of the larger US cities for extended periods of time and some other countries, it's interesting to see and experience all these different views people have.

I'm of the mindset that people of different backgrounds and ideologies should live and work together for the betterment of humanity as a whole. I understand that's a pipe dream to someone of your ideology, but what you suggest to me sounds like war, forever. War over resources, land, infrastructure. No one would ever grow or advance and if they did, it would cause more war as those around them would want what they have. Travelling becomes perilous, families become torn apart by distance not just opinions. There's less incentive for discourse and nationalism becomes the norm.

“Humanity as a whole” only exists in biology textbooks and science fiction. The reality is that we are a multitude of different tribal groups that will be forever at war with each other. Whether it’s regional hegemonies, individual nations, or pack us in tight enough in cities and it is gangs on neighboring blocks, it always ends up the same.

 

[yukbon]

We have very different world views, but this statement out of everything else you wrote in that post stick out to me the most. It is the single most untrue statement in the entire thing.

When it comes to the subject of the federal government, it is not us, because there is no “us” at all. There are two reasons for that.

First, unless the “us” in question is large multinational, multi-billion dollar corporations, then the federal (and some states) government does not represent “us”.


Secondly, regardless of the fact that you and I may technically be citizens the same country, there is only you and I, there is no “we”, no “us”. I find the worldview you hold, the political results you seek to be utterly abhorrent and repulsive. There are lines you and most others here seek to cross to which I am fully and completely of the view that violence is the only acceptable answer. (No I won’t be specific.)


So no, the the government most assuredly is not “us”.

This is where I get off. This (and the balkanization/violence as recourse views) is tribalism and in my view, antisocial and anti-union. I don't see how these beliefs and a belief in a United States coexist, and I think the conversation will only go downhill from here. I don't mean this as a personal attack - you're not the only one to hold these views - but as an earnest expression of differing views and philosophies. I think, and hope, you are wrong. But we'll see, eventually, I guess.

 

[AnthonyI]

“Humanity as a whole” only exists in biology textbooks and science fiction. The reality is that we are a multitude of different tribal groups that will be forever at war with each other. Whether it’s regional hegemonies, individual nations, or pack us in tight enough in cities and it is gangs on neighboring blocks, it always ends up the same.

Humanity as a whole exists beyond textbooks and science fiction, some choose not to see it. Some, look forward to the "Inevitable", while others try and force some degree of change to avoid the inevitable if not circumvent it completely.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
John F. Kennedy

 

[avecigrec]

Having lived in rural Canada, rural Georgia, and now in the greater metro Atlanta, visited some of the larger US cities for extended periods of time and some other countries, it's interesting to see and experience all these different views people have.

Way off-topic, but I'm curious where in rural Canada you lived?
Not because it has any bearing on the conversation, but because I'm curious.