NationStates

Olerand wrote:

United New England wrote:
New Englanders are more liberal than most of the rest of the US. In 2017, Gallup did a poll asking people from each state about their political leanings. If you rank the states by the percentage of respondents who described themselves as liberal, five out of the six New England states are in the top ten and the remaining one is in the top twenty. If you average the liberal percentages for the six states, New England as a whole is equally liberal to Oregon and New York State and more liberal than Washington State and California.

That being said, I don’t think we New Englanders would join Canada even if they asked us to (which I doubt they would). Despite our general admiration for certain aspects of Canadian society, we’re big on self-determination and probably would not want to be part of the British royal realms. I’m sure an independent New England would love to be allies with Canada, though.

I meant moderates in that their political scene is moderate, close to Canada's, and to a lesser degree Europe. A New England Republican isn't like a Republican from elsewhere, no?

Yes, being allies with Canada seems natural.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:You have actual proof of this right? Because I remember that you got shot down the last time you made the claim that only the rich have lots of guns.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/15/the-gun-numbers-just-3-of-american-adults-own-a-collective-133m-firearms

Most of America’s gun owners have relatively modest collections, with the majority of gun owners having an average of just three guns, and nearly half owning just one or two, according to a 2015 survey by Harvard and Northeastern researchers, which gave the most in-depth estimate of Americans’ current patterns of gun ownerships.

But America’s gun super-owners, have amassed huge collections. Just 3% of American adults own a collective 133m firearms – half of America’s total gun stock.

These owners have collections that range from eight to 140 guns, the 2015 study found. Their average collection: 17 guns each.

You do realize that you can carry three or more different guns right? Switch to a different gun when your ammo in one runs low.

You do realize there's a reason that most modern militaries don't encourage soldiers to carry three or more different guns, right?

... right?

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:

Uxupox wrote:
don't need to carry more guns when you can give it too somebody else who doesn't have any.

He also seem to have forgotten that carrying guns isn't just about the pew-pew factor.

Try walking with three fully loaded guns on a march of many kilometers, you'll see that it will start to get quite heavy.

Thermodolia wrote:

Ifreann wrote:No they aren't. Contrary to the popular belief that America is up to its eyes in guns, most American households don't have any guns, and most of the minority that do, only have one or two guns. The very large majority of privately held guns in the US are in the hands of a rather small minority of people.

You have actual proof of this right? Because I remember that you got shot down the last time you made the claim that only the rich have lots of guns.

And being highly trained in the way of the firearm as you surely are, you are aware that it is somewhat impractical to use ten guns at once.

You do realize that you can carry three or more different guns right? Switch to a different gun when your ammo in one runs low.

A dozen lads that play soldiers on the weekends isn't going to conquer a town of thousands and put half of them against a wall, much less a city of millions.

These guys aren’t playing soldier dude. They are very much like the militias the troubles. The vast majority of these militias aren’t weekend warriors but people who believe the end of the world is right around the corner. Theres a reason why the Preppers have massive overlap with the militia movement.

Pantoufle wrote:Wow, uh. Interesting responses, I don't recall seeing a statement I quite agree with so here's my take. I don't think this is because of Trump, or because of Kavanaugh. This is something that has been brewing for a few years now, well before Trump took office and even considered running for President. However, we're seeing strong voices in the left sorta support the mob. It's not republicans or right wingers you see pulling old people out of cars or kicking people. The one example of the Unite the Right rally is a bad example because it was almost universally denounced by major voices on the right.

Average Americans, I don't think are as divided. It's hard to say how much has changed since last year but the trend shows that this started during 2011 to 2014, under Obama things were starting to divide before Trump even considered running for President. When he won and in the nearly 2 years as president, the left has shifted further left. While republicans have stayed mostly the same. However, because of stuff like Antifa. You're seeing a growth in the support of Reactionary ideals.
http://www.people-press.org/interactives/political-polarization-1994-2017/

Olerand wrote:

Pantoufle wrote:Wow, uh. Interesting responses, I don't recall seeing a statement I quite agree with so here's my take. I don't think this is because of Trump, or because of Kavanaugh. This is something that has been brewing for a few years now, well before Trump took office and even considered running for President. However, we're seeing strong voices in the left sorta support the mob. It's not republicans or right wingers you see pulling old people out of cars or kicking people. The one example of the Unite the Right rally is a bad example because it was almost universally denounced by major voices on the right.

Average Americans, I don't think are as divided. It's hard to say how much has changed since last year but the trend shows that this started during 2011 to 2014, under Obama things were starting to divide before Trump even considered running for President. When he won and in the nearly 2 years as president, the left has shifted further left. While republicans have stayed mostly the same. However, because of stuff like Antifa. You're seeing a growth in the support of Reactionary ideals.
http://www.people-press.org/interactives/political-polarization-1994-2017/

It's fascinating to see that there are people who actually believe this... In an international comparison... The American left drifting to some radical left is laughable, really. The American right being so far to the right, however...

Pantoufle wrote:

Olerand wrote:It's fascinating to see that there are people who actually believe this... In an international comparison... The American left drifting to some radical left is laughable, really. The American right being so far to the right, however...

Are you seriously trying to say the inverse of what I showed in the publication I shared is true? Because that seems like what you're trying to do.

Olerand wrote:

Pantoufle wrote:Are you seriously trying to say the inverse of what I showed in the publication I shared is true? Because that seems like what you're trying to do.

I couldn't see the Pew study, it never loaded for me. I was only responding to your post.

Pantoufle wrote:

Olerand wrote:I couldn't see the Pew study, it never loaded for me. I was only responding to your post.

Alright lol

The Lone Alliance wrote:Really the idea that the civil war would be anything like "Mobs of militias hunting down leftists" really doesn't know about America.

The main thing is if America collapses into civil war or some form of long form of unrest, a large number of people would likely die without anyone even firing a shot. If infrastructure gets taken out or blockaded, if power, water, and other supplies are damaged, that in itself will lead to the deaths of people on both sides.

The only reason Americans can really continue to live is because of the long network of supply lines, power, water, food, and other transport, constantly moving things from one part of the country to the other, you shut that down, people will start starving.

Olerand wrote:

Pantoufle wrote:Alright lol

Lol indeed. Thinking the American left is far to the left, and the American right isn't far to the right. Lol indeed.

Pantoufle wrote:

Olerand wrote:Lol indeed. Thinking the American left is far to the left, and the American right isn't far to the right. Lol indeed.

By a European standard, sure. But Europe isn't the entire world and it doesn't get to set the barometer for what is far right and far left. Much as America or North America isn't either.

The Lone Alliance wrote:Really the idea that the civil war would be anything like "Mobs of militias hunting down leftists" really doesn't know about America.

The main thing is if America collapses into civil war or some form of long form of unrest, a large number of people would likely die without anyone even firing a shot. If infrastructure gets taken out or blockaded, if power, water, and other supplies are damaged, that in itself will lead to the deaths of people on both sides.

The only reason Americans can really continue to live is because of the long network of supply lines, power, water, food, medicine, and other transport, constantly moving things from one part of the country to the other, you shut that down, people will start starving and people will start dying as the healthcare system, as flawed as it is, collapses due to issues.

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:

The Lone Alliance wrote:Really the idea that the civil war would be anything like "Mobs of militias hunting down leftists" really doesn't know about America.

The main thing is if America collapses into civil war or some form of long form of unrest, a large number of people would likely die without anyone even firing a shot. If infrastructure gets taken out or blockaded, if power, water, and other supplies are damaged, that in itself will lead to the deaths of people on both sides.

The only reason Americans can really continue to live is because of the long network of supply lines, power, water, food, medicine, and other transport, constantly moving things from one part of the country to the other, you shut that down, people will start starving and people will start dying as the healthcare system, as flawed as it is, collapses due to issues.

And y'all know what happens when people are starving and desperate?

They turn to the formation of gangs, looting, robbing, murder, and even cannibalism.

I will be brutally honest here, if I was starving and attempting to protect my family, I'd throw any pretenses of civility straight out the window.

Olerand wrote:

Pantoufle wrote:By a European standard, sure. But Europe isn't the entire world and it doesn't get to set the barometer for what is far right and far left. Much as America or North America isn't either.

European, Canadian, Kiwi, Australian... I mean... Out of all of the Western world, when you're the exception...

Olerand wrote:Oh I never contested that you need a patron. I said that, clearly. You need funds, and you need someone to provide you with weapons. I contended, numerous times, that the American "left" has funds, and will find no shortage of parties to provide them with weapons.

In a developed or semi-developed country? I can't. See, as my original posts also clearly say, I don't think developed countries are willing to fall into civil wars anymore, and as no one has, I obviously can't provide you with examples. I can in developing countries, who are the ones who have civil wars.

Reread, clearly, and calmly. There might be some difficulties, but you can do it. Leftists will have to have militias. You can't just be "leftists" in a war. You need a militia.

Again, reread, clearly, and calmly. The vague amalgamation of "leftists" can't exist in a civil war. They will need a militia. Leftists in other civil wars had militias. You will need a militia to fight in a war. It's a condition sine qua non to even be in a war.

Again, reread, clearly, calmly, and with a clear comprehension of words and sentences. That you believe that "leftists" will be these random individuals or this massive unorganized agglomeration during this conflict speaks more to your understand than mine. "Leftists" will need to have a militia. They must, and they will. Civil wars everywhere show that, even the Spanish one, manned as it was by Anarchists even.
Even they had militias.

At this point, I am, because you're not reading posts, clearly, calmly, and with a clear comprehension of words and sentences, and most importantly with a clear mind. "Leftists" means nothing. They will need, and will have, militias. You will not purge a country as big as a continent in the work of a week, no matter how much vibrant your wording is.

Olerand wrote:Uhm... Your knowledge of French history is as... deep as your knowledge of the realities of war. De Gaulle became president of the Fifth Republic, and the Fifth Republic came into existence, in 1958. He first became leader of France again by being named Prime Minister of the Fourth Republic, also in the crisis of May 58.
The OAS came into existence in 1961, and ceased to exist in 1962.

See, millions of French and a consideration of it as being a part of France were... not right. That's why it's not a part of France. Why the French Republic gave it independence, and why the Algerian war is called the Algerian war, and not the French civil war.

Ifreann wrote:The point, which I thought was obvious, is that this fantasy of yours

of Republicans putting down their beers and assembling into a crack fighting force when civil war is declared is exactly that. A fantasy. The militia types you are talking about would be too few to be of any particular consequence, and most other Republicans would be about as familiar with firearms as most Democrats.

Let me guess, you think that the National Guard will join the militias in hunting down and executing unarmed leftists. Hilarious.

Uxupox wrote:

Olerand wrote:European, Canadian, Kiwi, Australian... I mean... Out of all of the Western world, when you're the exception...

The United States should finally break off that discriminatory yoke calling itself "Western" appropriately called it self a true civilization of a conglomeration of civilizations.

Olerand wrote:

Uxupox wrote:
The United States should finally break off that discriminatory yoke calling itself "Western" appropriately called it self a true civilization of a conglomeration of civilizations.

... A conglomeration of what? The vast majority of American culture is distinctly western.

Uxupox wrote:

Olerand wrote:... A conglomeration of what? The vast majority of American culture is distinctly western.

Such as?

Olerand wrote:

Uxupox wrote:
Such as?

Your Constitution? Your religions? Your modern values? Your everyday life? Your ancestral traditions?

Uxupox wrote:

Olerand wrote:Your Constitution? Your religions? Your modern values? Your everyday life? Your ancestral traditions?

Our constitution is inherently different from any sort of European influence (the only European having any sort of influence on it is John Locke). Religion? Do you mean by religious basis that South Korea is also inherently "Western" due to the Abrahamic influence over its population? Our values are also different as you have stated previously. What about our everyday life? Who cares about ancestral traditions.

Olerand wrote:Separation of powers? Montesquieu no?

Democracy? The ancient thinkers, no? Literally every part of it was influenced by Europe.

Well no, religion in play with other factors. Religion alone does not make you Western, which is why Uganda is not Western. Though your Christianity is closer to ours (outside of Evangelicalism) than it is to Uganda's.

Oh they are different no doubt. But yours are derived from Western thought. America's obsession with freedom doesn't come from the east, no?

Your everyday life is more similar to ours than it is to the east or south, no?

Well... Many Americans do, as they repeatedly say and do. Many Americans are, again, from my personal experience, very proud of their Scottish-English-Irish whatever roots.