'I'm done': Fed up with California, some conservatives look to Texas

[cparle87]

Well, I have no experience of Texas beyond driving through it back in the 90s.

But when I moved to San Diego, I ended up returning to WA within 6 months. it was just too much of a poorly-managed dump compared to WA state.

Expensive, dirty, couldn't drink the tap water, didn't feel very safe at times. The use of so much water to turn the desert green seemed like an over-indulgent waste. Nasty drivers, bad traffic (in LA at least).

Not political, but I ran from CA. Now, if I was making high six figures (500k or more) and could afford to live in the luxurious parts of SoCal and live that lifestyle, I'm sure I'd love CA. But being upper middle class (about 100k), I just felt like WA was the better choice.

Yeah, I never understood the need to build a city in the middle of the desert. Nearly every river in California and many even further away, like the Colorado River, are rerouted to feeding green utopia society is a place one step up from the Sahara. Some years not a single drop of water from the Colorado reaches the sea cause it's LITERALLY all rerouted.

[Flarelaine]

Generally it's some moron who thinks autism is worse than watching their family slowly die of scarlet fever.

... as if there was a connection.

[Deleted]

Eventually the US will break up into different nations anyway.

One for Liberals, one for Conservatves and one possibly called Northern-Mexico.

[PosPosPos]

If all conservatives leave California, then the left will just eat one another. Seen it happen on social media all the time

At least they wait till the conservatives leave before infighting.

The conservatives are already infighting with liberals running circles around them, because if they weren't busy doing that they would have passed their healthcare bill a long time ago.

[zebreck]

Funny thing though, Texas is going to be a swing state in a few election cycles. Assuming the Democrats don't suddenly start supporting gay slavery and the Republicans keep doubling down on stupid that state will be a legitimate tossup in 8-12 years. Swing states don't get to play in the gerrymandered majority games, which means just about everything Texas is famous for politically (Jade Helm, evolution=terrorism, open carry in Starbucks, etc.) is currently on a slow but inevitable slide into the past. The culture will change, the overton window will slowly shift left, and then as if by magic there will be a meaningful liberal contingent (liberal for Rs) that prevent a lot of the silly from continuing to happen. So enjoy it while it lasts I guess.

[Realitytrembles]

Eventually the US will break up into different nations anyway.

One for Liberals, one for Conservatives and one possibly called Northern-Mexico.

I wonder if that's really true. Americans tend to identify strongly with their federal union in a way that I think it's hard for Europeans to understand. Many US states have economies and territory that dwarfs many European nations, and they have somewhat distinctive cultures as well. It's true that Americans tend to bicker loudly and visibly, which could produce the notion in a foreigner's mind that we're on the verge of disunion. But another characteristic of Americans is a swift closing of the ranks when faced with a credible outside threat.

But, if the union did break up ( which in my view would require at least 2 massive crises back to back; perhaps a second Great Depression followed by nuclear terrorism), perhaps it would go something like this:

* Republic of Pacifica: Hawaii, California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada

* Republic of Alaska

* Rocky Mountain Free States (Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado)

* The Deseret Republic (Utah)

* The Confederate States of America (Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Kentucky, West Virginia)

* Republic of Aztlan (Arizona, New Mexico, Texas)

* Republic of Florida

* The Grange Union ( North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Wisconsin)

* and a rump USA consisting of all remaining states

[Deleted]

I wonder if that's really true. Americans tend to identify strongly with their federal union in a way that I think it's hard for Europeans to understand. Many US states have economies and territory that dwarfs many European nations, and they have somewhat distinctive cultures as well. It's true that Americans tend to bicker loudly and visibly, which could produce the notion in a foreigner's mind that we're on the verge of disunion. But another characteristic of Americans is a swift closing of the ranks when faced with a credible outside threat.

That always used to be the case, but it seems that there are rifts forming that are getting deeper and deeper every year.
The beliefs and political views between the people of certain regions are so big that the European cultural differences are small in comparison.

It is something that would eventually happen anyway tbh. The US is simply too large to keep it all together. People in different states develop like completely different cultures and just in Europen in the last 1000 years, it will eventually lead to changes on the map.

[Spectral]

*shrug*

Having different states with different cultures, economic climates, and laws is a working as intended situation. I don't think California is going to be crying its eyes out here. I personally wouldn't even consider living in their state, so obviously YMMV.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't you folks usually champion State's rights?

There is no plausible legal argument that states have significant discretion when it comes to immigration. Back in the '90s when California tried to stop using state resources on illegal aliens, they found that out the hard way.

- - - Updated - - -

Sadly much of islam in world history is negative, will they accurately portray the negativity or block it out and only teach the best possible examples of the religion to the students giving them a false image of a very complex religion and history in general?
Like I said, in more pictured fashion, they are sprinting down the line of being legal and illegal, stepping off the line is very easy.

To make sure it's as relevant as possible to American history, they could note that the transformation of slavery into the chattel slavery that most people are familiar with and that was practiced in the United States was basically an Islamic invention:

The Arab slave trade, established in the 8th and 9th centuries AD, began with small-scale movement of people largely from the eastern Great Lakes region and the Sahel. Islamic law allowed slavery but prohibited slavery involving other pre-existing Muslims; as a result, the main target for slavery were the people who lived in the frontier areas of Islam in Africa.[7] The trade of slaves across the Sahara and across the Indian Ocean also has a long history beginning with the control of sea routes by Afro-Arab traders in the ninth century. It is estimated that only a few thousand enslaved people were taken each year from the Red Sea and Indian Ocean coast. They were sold throughout the Middle East. This trade accelerated as superior ships led to more trade and greater demand for labour on plantations in the region. Eventually, tens of thousands per year were being taken.[52] On the Swahili Coast, the Afro-Arab slavers captured Bantu peoples from the interior and brought them to the littoral.[53][54] There, the slaves gradually assimilated in the rural areas, particularly on the Unguja and Pemba islands.[53]

Without that development and the slavery capture/infrastructure that was established, it's hard to know whether a trans-Atlantic trade would even have been a thing. I suppose it probably would, but the innovation was clearly one that was heavily founded in Islamic law. Another good tie-in for American history would be discussing the Barbary slave trade; only a few hundred Americans were enslaved, but the million or so Europeans that were enslaved helps explain why the Americans were inclined to employ their own Navy in fighting against this.

Perhaps it's be too salacious, but bringing up the Islamic doctrine on sex with slaves is instructive of why ISIS behaves as they do:

In Islamic law (Sharia), Ma malakat aymanukum is the term for slaves or captives of war. The purchase of female slaves for sex was lawful from the perspective of Islamic law, and this was the most common motive for the purchase of slaves throughout Islamic history.[51]

Al-Muminun 6 and Al-Maarij 30 both, in identical wording, draw a distinction between spouses and "those whom one's right hands possess", saying " أَزْوَ*جِهِمْ أَوْ مَ* مَلَكَ*ْ أَيْمَ**ُهُمْ" (literally, "their spouses or what their right hands possess"), while clarifying that sexual intercourse with either is permissible. Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi explains that "two categories of women have been excluded from the general command of guarding the private parts: (a) wives, (b) women who are legally in one's possession".[52]

This is surely relevant to the modern world. As long as they're going to teach some comparative religion, let's include these bits.

[Ivanstone]

This is surely relevant to the modern world. As long as they're going to teach some comparative religion, let's include these bits.

Ok. But which religious text influenced the Koran on this?

Or instead of whining about old practices influenced by old religions we could just choose to live our lives by the more positive effects detailed in our various religious texts.

Or would that be too much work?

[Spectral]

Ok. But which religious text influenced the Koran on this?

Sure, teach that too. Covering up or ignoring these horrors while praising the modern, liberal interpretations of either religion is obviously dishonest. If we're going to teach about religions, let's teach the dirt.

[Ivanstone]

Sure, teach that too. Covering up or ignoring these horrors while praising the modern, liberal interpretations of either religion is obviously dishonest. If we're going to teach about religions, let's teach the dirt.

I'm all for teaching the dirt but we should also teach the nice parts. Or would teaching the nice parts of the Koran be Islamic Indoctrination?

At the end of the day people will just choose to believe what they want to believe. Fred Phelps' interpretation of Christianity led him to be an anti-Jim Crow crusader and also to be one of the most notorious homophobes of our times. Its not any different for any other religion.

[Spectral]

I'm all for teaching the dirt but we should also teach the nice parts. Or would teaching the nice parts of the Koran be Islamic Indoctrination?

At the end of the day people will just choose to believe what they want to believe. Fred Phelps' interpretation of Christianity led him to be an anti-Jim Crow crusader and also to be one of the most notorious homophobes of our times. Its not any different for any other religion.

I think the history and actual outcomes at present are rather unique.

But sure, teaching Islamic poetry and the golden age of Islamic science is worthwhile too.

[Ealyssa]

An their children who we give citizenship, for some reason.. more often than not vote blue just cuz muh family

Or more likely because "muh stupid current republican president said we were all thieves and rapists"

Maybe don't insult them if you want them to vote for you ? Crazy idea right ?

[PosPosPos]

Or more likely because "muh stupid current republican president said we were all thieves and rapists"

Maybe don't insult them if you want them to vote for you ? Crazy idea right ?

Insulting or otherwise isn't going to change anything when one side has this victim complex and will take offense at the very existence of the other.

[Spectral]

Or more likely because "muh stupid current republican president said we were all thieves and rapists"

Maybe don't insult them if you want them to vote for you ? Crazy idea right ?

It seems pretty unlikely that Trump was a particularly relevant issue for Hispanics given that he got a higher share of the Hispanic vote than Romney did in 2012.

[Polybius]

Insulting or otherwise isn't going to change anything when one side has this victim complex and will take offense at the very existence of the other.

Kind of does. I mean look at what happened between Hillary and Bernie supporters.

[PosPosPos]

It seems pretty unlikely that Trump was a particularly relevant issue for Hispanics given that he got a higher share of the Hispanic vote than Romney did in 2012.

1% is hardly a significant statistic when it could be that the stars just so happened to align and he got more latino votes that day.

- - - Updated - - -

Kind of does. I mean look at what happened between Hillary and Bernie supporters.

Left vs Right is different from Hillary vs Bernie, sweetie.

The former has one side with a victim complex, the latter has one side who was genuinely and objectively disenfranchised by the other.

[Spectral]

1% is hardly a significant statistic when it could be that the stars just so happened to align and he got more latino votes that day.

The claim isn't that Trump was vastly better than Romney, but that his vote share isn't unusual for a Republican - his comments regarding Mexicans, walls, or whatever didn't really move the needle relative to Romney. It turns out Hispanic-Americans have voting preferences based on economic and other policy issues and aren't as single-mindedly obsessed with narrow identity politics as people seem to believe.

[Sunseeker]

Meanwhile, this guy is also running a business helping liberals move out of Texas, because his one true loyalty is money!

Hey if you want to move somewhere else, go for it, a lot of people can't afford it but if you can and don't like where you live, feel free, it's a free country after all.

[PosPosPos]

It turns out Hispanic-Americans have voting preferences based on economic and other policy issues and aren't as single-mindedly obsessed with narrow identity politics as people seem to believe.

If that were truly the case, the votes should have went down, because Trump was obviously way worse than what Romney would be capable of.