Presidential election, 2016

[Eric the Green]

(11-24-2016, 12:29 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I'm not going to fight to keep California as part of the United States. To me, California wouldn't be worth the sacrifice. America would get the bulk of its business's and the bulk of the productive workforce and the bulk it's more law abiding and more productive citizens and the bulk of it's agricultural exports that we're used to seeing as well regardless of whether it stays or goes. In my opinion, America needs a blue dumping ground. An alternate world for those who don't want to do shit for a living and uppity fools who feel they're obligated to support them, educated dim wits who ignore major issues relating to the working class who care more about establishing a new precedence and relatively dumb (uneducated) immigrants who are used to working for pennies to flood to by the millions instead of the United States.  

I hope more people will agree with you and let CA and other blue states leave the USA if they wish. For our part a lot of us wouldn't mind it if the shoe gets on the other foot and Democrats and Greens take over the Federal government again, and some red states want to leave. This is not 1860 and it's not worth the fight to keep the USA together as it exists now.

California is still doing quite well, since although white Republicans may leave, there's plenty of young smart and law-abiding people coming here from red states and other countries that keep our economy humming and innovative. The view you have that people who agree with government help given to the less fortunate, "those who don't want to do shit for a living and uppity fools who feel they're obligated to support them," seems to me to be the nub of the disagreement between the red and blue states. It's called the dog whistle for the free market economics meme (classical/neo-liberal, social-darwinist, self-reliance, Reaganomics, trickle-down, libertarian economics-- it has many names, as you know; all the same thing).

In our opinion, and it seems largely proven by the facts, our view works better for the people, and it's the blue states and not the red states that do well, while people in the red states are victims of their own adherence to this meme. However, it also endangers the world because it allows climate change and species destruction to occur. Meanwhile, most of the absentee owners whom you guys defer to and empower, know a good thing, and are wealthy enough to live in the blue states. Your hero Mr. Trump is the perfect example.

Quote:Right now, there's a decent black guy and his family living in my parents house. I'm cool with it and I have no issues with him as a person. Hell, I place more value on him than I place on someone like you. I know that goes against the blue narrative used here. But then again, the blue narrative isn't interested in what's actually going on, what it's actually about or what it actually means and so forth. The blue narrative is only interested in what it seeks to obtain or gain for itself. OK. We know what we've got, we've got two blue regions fixated on itself politically with a blue city located in between them. Minnesota may not stay blue for very long with my age group coming into power and becoming more vocal and more active politically. We could begin to move to separate from the blue cities which would isolate the cities and force the cities to become wiser and less reliant upon the state.

Well, I'd say TWO cities now (I'd take the Denver area as another blue hub). Good luck with your isolation plan; again, we do know what's going on; that's what makes us progressives. And we know that the red rural areas are the most impoverished, and that their self-reliance system does not work.