Why is it always republicans telling dems to leave if they dont like the country?

A lot of them do leave, only to come back after reality cures the TDS.

When was America ever great?

In terms of achieving World greatness the US sort of missed the boat.

In terms of global dominance Britain was in fact once the greatest ever, closely followed by Rome.

Recent attempts at American greatness are not going so well...Though Trump ain't no Caesar...Unless a quick but somewhat fraught with personal hygiene issues trip to the Moon is your idea of greatness...Though in terms of global interest, I don't think that Artemis has quite lived up to Apollo.

Indeed...All current attempts at MAGA seem to be counter productive...More sort of MANOGA... Making America Number One Global Arseholes.

I would suggest that MAGA is basically one mans ego trip.

Yeah, I think it's boilerplate dogma for Blue Maga that the USA is a colonial exploiter built on the backs of African slaves and was never great. Only by purging all white males who let it happen in the first place can America be built back up from the ashes. In the minds of Blue Maga, brown people have never enslaved others, nor colonized any lands.

Stolen People

Stolen Land

In terms of global dominance Britain was in fact once the greatest ever, closely followed by Rome.

I seriously doubt the UK will ever be back strong since it's firmly under the control of BLUE MUKGA

Stolen People

Stolen Land

We and to a lesser degree other western European nations exported all our achievements around the World...Just as Rome previously exported all it's achievements across Europe, the Middle east and North Africa...And prior to that the peoples of Mesopotamia.

And such progress was always built on the backs of slaves, by dominant overlords.

Stolen people, stolen lands is a bit of a liberal lefty finger in the ear folk song title, that completely disregards the inevitable achievements of thinking Ape.

It is a catchy song though.

Stolen People

Stolen Land

Stolen People

Stolen Land

A Rock Classic for Shoresy

You came

You stayed

For a while

We came

We're here

We're staying

With you.

For a while

You might as well

Stop whinging.

And enjoy the dance.

This nation was founded on property rights, gun rights, freedom of association, with a Christian culture. The founders can best be described as Christian conservative-leaning minarchists.

Everything the left believes in is in opposition to the core of what makes America. They have beliefs systems more akin to what you’d find in Europe or Canada. Meanwhile America’s right wing is exclusive to America, unique to this country because it is exactly what made this country.

So if the left doesn’t like what this country is about, they should be the ones to leave. And they have plenty of options.

Everything the left believes in is in opposition to the core of what makes America.

What makes your conception of America based on what you value.

The founding fathers built this nation in opposition to a king. A nation where laws would be shaped by debate over fiat. Everything else are side issues, most of which were only enshrined because they believed it would protect the vision I just laid out from being thwarted.

The fact that you overlook that in order to jump straight to your pet peeve issues demonstrates exactly the phenomenon the OP is pointing to. The right wing superiority complex is remarkable. The inability to tell the difference between what you personally value and what the country is, is remarkable.

This nation was founded on property rights, gun rights, freedom of association, with a Christian culture.

This is surprisingly (to me) not very common knowledge today. I taught my class of 15-year-olds last month the major difference between North and South America, culture-wise and prosperity-wise, despite both being colonized by white Europeans. Few are aware that South America has historically had few property rights, and the governments of South America were heavily influenced by the pompous Spanish nobility adjacent to Spanish royalty, who heavily focused on central planning, vs. the Founding Fathers' deep philosophy of the decentralization of State control. Different colonial systems → different institutions → different incentives → different outcomes. The rejection of King George wasn't just about a petty dispute raging over a villified cult-of-personality; it was a fundamentally philosophical difference of governing styles. South America never had that clean break from centralized planning governance, and the contrast is absolutely evident. It's not a stretch to think illegal migrants from South America are likely bringing these cultural ideas with them. Perhaps, America's Democratic Party has been, over the many years, heavily influenced by the infiltration of South American governing culture without a change of the brand label.

As of today, there's nearly nothing liberal about the Democratic Party, because its current number one overall focus as a political party is to shore up centralized authority, which is the complete opposite of liberalism. While the party has gone through so many morphings of the definition of "liberal," that "ship of Theseus" today looks far more like a helicopter than anything seaworthy. Metaphorically speaking, the original idea of liberalism was more like a grounded ship, slow, stable, and constrained. What I am seeing now looks more like a helicopter-style government, hovering overhead, ready to drop into anything, anywhere. The only thing "free" is the unconstrained top-heavy government free to impose whatever it wants with arbitrary rules and selective enforcement. And while the GOP today is basically Democrat-lite in the style of a 90's Democratic Party, with a mix of South American top-down and the Founding Fathers' decentralized policies, the left is full mask-off South American/European style. That's why I have to chuckle so hard at the Democratic Party's "No Kings" rallies, knowing full well that it's clearly a self-tell, and the plethora of Mexican and Communist flags at those rallies tells you all you need to know about the real intent of the party. To have a full 100% royalty-adjacent style of governance that looks mostly like the governance of Europe and South America. And New York City...holy crap that's gonna be wild in a few years...

That's why I have to chuckle so hard at the Democratic Party's "No Kings" rallies, knowing full well that it's clearly a self-tell

A tell... As in clear projection... As in the Democratic party is ostensibly advocating against the very things it itself is guilty of.

The Trump administration whom the party is mobilizing against is openly and overtly using the DOJ to prosecute Trump's political opponents while Trump pardons people who violate the law in his name, openly using the FEC to punish actors and entities who criticize Trump, and is calling for republicans to "take over" federal elections.

And the equivalent on the left is... What... Raising taxes on the top 1%?

One of my great irritations is being told some X group of people is Y, resulting in Z. X, Y & Z are all monaural in nature, we think. We? This mono is a term that has lost its use in our glitz media age, I suppose because humans have 2 ears, and so should be able to hear stereophonic, not just monaural sound, and because we also happen to have stereopsis vision [2 eyes]. This assumption of consistent stereo sound and sight, is, of course, false, given the incident of humans who, with either or both ears or eyes [or both] are non-functional.

However, politically, too many think our political sensibniities ought to be mono, not stereo. Therefore, as in this case, all Rs are X, all Ds are Y, etc.

That is, by the first paragraph mostly absurd, given the sensibility of most of us is with two functional eyes, and two functional ears. So, why should our political, cultural, linguistic, or even race [if there was one, but the Human Genome Project, in 2003, determined the existence of race is strictly not], by mono?

Absurd notion. Every group, regardless of number [i.e., greater than one person] has as many expressions. Do not throw us all together, monaurally, because we are not. All Rs do no tell all Ds to leave the country if they do not like it.

it's just poor grammar, and not very social, either. Or, what's the term? Tolerant? Now, there's an overused, poorly felt sentiment.

I think SergeantLynch has the wisest comment here: Stop whining; enjoy the dance.

What... Raising taxes on the top 1%?

Trump learned early and fast that the real kings are not on Wall Street. They are in DC and the Mayoral Mansions.

Trump learned early and fast that the real kings are not on Wall Street. They are in DC and the Mayoral Mansions.

Which is yet another reason democratic priorities are categorically different from what this administration is doing. So do you have any answer to my question?

I also love how Blue Maga media cries about 4-dollar-a-gallon gasoline (petrol) nationally when Blue Maga states rarely ever see gas priced that low, usually being a dollar or much more over the national average.

So do you have any answer to my question?

I did. It's the Kings that historically confiscated the lands of the nobles. Let's see how that regression in New York pans out.

Modern “tax the rich” rhetoric put in practice looks a lot less like bottom-up populism and more like top-down consolidation, but with the focus-group-tested skin suit of "compassion."

The whole premise of maga is to make America great again as if America aint already great. If maga dont like it, why dont they just leave?

Saying America isn't great and not liking it are different things though. Your kid could be a serial killer and you still love them. It's kind of a nitpicky distinction, but of the people who would say they are ashamed to be American, I think more would be on the left than in the MAGA camp though. Of course, MAGA sometimes conflates these things themselves when they accuse people of being unpatriotic for not supporting the current government.

Now, that said, whether America is great or not really depends on how we're defining "America" when measuring greatness. If the greatness of a country depends on what it stands for, then perhaps even totalitarian countries are great if they outwardly stand for good things. If it depends on whether bad things happen in the country, then no country is great.

You could also point to migration pulls as a metric for a country's greatness. Since the USA currently has a net exodus, you could argue that America has gotten worse.

I also love how Blue Maga media cries about 4-dollar-a-gallon gasoline (petrol) nationally when Blue Maga states rarely ever see gas priced that low, usually being a dollar or much more over the national average.

This is a really dumb talking point. Has prices are higher in "blue" states for a number of reasons, including higher gas taxes and stricter environmental regulations.

Turns out that when you have more cars on the roads, you need more money to keep them maintenanced and the quality of the air you breath suffers so you might want higher standards for fuel burning. I know, shocker.

Or if you're MAGA; "dUh blue states must like higher gas prices"

I did. It's the Kings that historically confiscated the lands of the nobles.

So no, you have no answer. Ok thanks.

 for a number of reasons

all of them bad.

So no, you have no answer.

None that you can debunk for sure.

Kings have historically been the only ones to seize the property of the nobility. Today it's Mayors, Congress, and in some cases, the President de jour.

Or if you're MAGA; "dUh blue states must like higher gas prices"

If you're blue maga, you say "oh! gas is expensive for altruistic reasons."

More cars don't justify higher tax rates, since you get more income with more cars with the standard rates, but fraud does.

-

and the quality of the air you breath suffers so you might want higher standards for fuel burning. I know, shocker.

In California, smog-era fuel regulations were built for a long-ago time when ancient cars had clunky carburetors, unreliable fuel delivery, and minimal exhaust scrubbing. That world is gone. Modern engines use precise electronic fuel injection, real-time ECU control, and optimized combustion timing to burn fuel far more completely than older systems ever could. On top of that, advanced catalytic converters remove the vast majority of smog-forming emissions after combustion. In other words, the problem these fuel rules were designed to solve has largely been engineered out of the vehicle itself. Fuel is no longer the primary lever for smog reduction; the engine and exhaust technology are. Fuel composition today has little to no effect on the emissions of a 2026 engineered car.

At the same time, 2026 refining technology has evolved significantly. Modern 2026 refineries already produce cleaner base fuels through improved processes like hydrotreating and reforming, reducing sulfur and impurities without needing hyper-specific, legacy formulations. The system today is effectively a closed loop: efficient combustion inside the engine and highly effective emissions cleanup afterward. Forcing rigid, boutique fuel blends from archaic legislation on top of that just creates added cost and supply constraints without delivering any substantial environmental gains. It’s a classic case of diminishing returns. The system continuing to optimize the fuel for a problem that modern engineering has already largely solved elsewhere.

.

Ethanol fits into this outdated framework as well. The party of "science" claims it as a clean additive, but it has a lower energy density, meaning more fuel must be burned to travel the same distance, literally increasing the density of emissions. Useless ethanol rules undercut fuel efficiency while adding complexity to fuel production and distribution. Combined with modern engine and refinery advances, it looks less like a necessary solution and more like a legacy policy holdover to indirectly subsidize corn farmers. The overall picture is pretty straightforward: combustion technology improved, refining got way cleaner, but the regulatory structure kept treating fuel as the main problem, long after it stopped being a factor. That's the regression of Blue Maga and the worship of the 4th branch ministries of inefficiency and waste.

None that you can debunk for sure.

Then go ahead and provide it. I'll wait.

More cars don't justify higher tax rates, since you get more income with more cars with the standard rates, but fraud does.

The kind of infrastructure needed in highly congested areas costs way more to build and maintain than paving ashault over dirt, so raising rates is absolutely reasonable. This is common sense.

At the same time, 2026 refining technology has evolved significantly. Modern 2026 refineries already produce cleaner base fuels through improved processes like hydrotreating and reforming, reducing sulfur and impurities without needing hyper-specific, legacy formulations. The system today is effectively a closed loop: efficient combustion inside the engine and highly effective emissions cleanup afterward.

I wonder if you think it's not obvious when you're using AI to write your arguments.

It is perfectly reasonable to question the costs vs benefits of environmental regulations given advances in technology and refining methods, what's not reasonable is to suggest there's no problem at all to solve and what's outright stupid is to use that false presumption as a basis to claim democrats are doing it because they love high gas prices. This is the problem with trying to have a conversation with you, everything to you is conspiracies and caricatures.

I wonder if you think it's not obvious when you're using AI to write your arguments.

I double-check facts because I know that you don't, and that is also obvious.

This is the problem with trying to have a conversation with you, everything to you is conspiracies and caricatures.

This is your self-tell,

Your caricature was:

Or if you're MAGA; "dUh blue states must like higher gas prices"

And I clearly said:

If you're blue maga, you say "oh! Gas is expensive for altruistic reasons."

None of that statement implies that Blue Maga LOVES high gas prices. It clearly states they believe in altruistic reasons, and I specifically omitted practical reasons and then gave you a page to read why. Emotional appeals are the fuel for maintaining impractical policies, and your daily posts here support that idea.

It is perfectly reasonable to question the costs vs benefits of environmental regulations given advances in technology and refining methods, what's not reasonable is to suggest there's no problem at all to solve and what's outright stupid is to use that false presumption as a basis to claim democrats are doing it because they love high gas prices.

So why isn't it also reasonable to question the practicality of regulations written in the 1990's? Two dollars price difference over the national average is nothing to flip your nose at, and it's a highly emotionally charged assumption to imply the rest of the nation just doesn't care about the environment or has little understanding of the economies of road maintenance. Most of the wear and tear on roads is from the weather btw, as water seeping in starts the destabilization of the roads regardless of traffic. Rural areas have a far harder time securing funding for maintaining roads than urban areas.

I'll wait.

This is a really dumb talking point. Has prices are higher in "blue" states for a number of reasons, including higher gas taxes and stricter environmental regulations.

Turns out that when you have more cars on the roads, you need more money to keep them maintenanced and the quality of the air you breath suffers so you might want higher standards for fuel burning. I know, shocker.

I mean, feel free to die on that hill defending this garbage, but in the end, it's your hill, and people can choose to leave it. That's the consequence of living in a country that has alternative states with fewer regal governors and mayors living the high life, and confiscating the 1% of the nobility in the states Blue Maga lives in. It really isn't a stretch to say Blue Maga absolutely supports and trusts the 4th branch of US government. You yourself have made may posts singing high praises for the 4th branch cottage industry.

This is your self-tell, 

Your caricature was:

Or if you're MAGA; "dUh blue states must like higher gas prices"

And I clearly said:

If you're blue maga, you say "oh! Gas is expensive for altruistic reasons."

You really love self owning.

My caricature of you came in post 18. Your statement above came in post 20 in response to it. And you knew that because you quoted it as you responded. So to pretend like I ignored your statement just to unfairly attack you when I said it, is yet another example of your inability to keep up with the conversation you are engaged in.

With regards to the actual point you were making - that I was unfairly portraying your argument when I made that sarcastic interpretation - recall how this gas price topic started in the first place; I posted originally about the no kings protests, specifically stating why your claims about democratic projection were nonsense. You then responded to that by talking about gas prices in blue states, which had nothing to do with the conversation, to claim democrats are hypocrites for complaining about high gas prices since gas prices are higher in blue states. That's an asinine thing to suggest, especially in that context, and it absolutely implies that blue state gas prices are higher because democrats don't care about high gas prices.

it's a highly emotionally charged assumption to imply the rest of the nation just doesn't care about the environment or has little understanding of the economies of road maintenance.

The obvious tell of someone being emotionally charged is when they react to things that were never said.

Nothing about my argument suggested the "rest of the nation" doesn't care about the environment. I pointed out that blue states are generally more congested and therefore have much more reason to care about this. I also never suggested the rest of the nation doesn't understand the economics of road maintenance, just you.

Most of the wear and tear on roads is from the weather btw, as water seeping in starts the destabilization of the roads regardless of traffic. Rural areas have a far harder time securing funding for maintaining roads than urban areas.

That's why I brought up infrastructure and how paving asphalt over dirt pales in comparison to the types of projects required in urban areas.

That's why I brought up infrastructure and how paving asphalt over dirt pales in comparison to the types of projects required in urban areas.

 Feel free to die on that hill defending this garbage, but in the end, it's your hill, and people can choose to leave it. That's the consequence of living in a country that has alternative states with fewer regal governors and mayors living the high life, and confiscating the 1% of the nobility in the states Blue Maga lives in. It really isn't a stretch to say Blue Maga absolutely supports and trusts the 4th branch of US government. You yourself have made many posts singing high praises for the 4th branch cottage industry.

The founding fathers built this nation in opposition to a king. A nation where laws would be shaped by debate over fiat.

And where the people with their creator-endowed rights would be free from tyranny.

Everything else are side issues, most of which were only enshrined because they believed it would protect the vision I just laid out from being thwarted.

If the founders believed it would protect the vision, then it’s not just a side issue. It’s critical to not having a king, and it’s critical for the protection of liberty. That includes speech, gun rights, and other property rights (which would entail freedom of association).

The fact that you overlook that in order to jump straight to your pet peeve issues demonstrates exactly the phenomenon the OP is pointing to. The right wing superiority complex is remarkable. The inability to tell the difference between what you personally value and what the country is, is remarkable.

Like it or not, our country was founded on those principles, and they do define the country. And yes, the ideas behind said principles are better than yours. If you disagree, you are also welcome to find a country with values closer to yours.

If the founders believed it would protect the vision, then it’s not just a side issue.

That's exactly what makes it a side issue.

The word "founded" in this context has actual meaning. It comes from the word foundation, which is what sits at the very bottom and which everything else is built upon.

The foundation this country was built on is opposition to a king. Or more specifically, opposition to a populace being exploited by power which is not accountable to said populace.

The 2nd amendment was created to protect against that eventuality. Which by definition means, the 2nd amendment was built on top of this principal, which definitionally means it's not the foundation.

So no, you don't get to claim gun rights or whatever other issues you raised are the foundation of the country, that's not how English works.

That's exactly what makes it a side issue.

No, it would mean it's as critical to the country as not having a king. You keep trying to downplay the importance of the 2A, as if it's something you can erase with semantics.

But you're still not at the foundation. What is the point of having all this representation if they take away your liberties? And if the Founding Fathers believed an American king was most likely to defend liberty, would they not have made the Washington line royalty?

They opposed a king, set up a system to avoid having a king, to protect American liberties; they simply believed a democratic-republic was the best option. Those liberties include property rights and, of course, the right to adequately defend said property, including the use of firearms.

The liberties granted in the Bill of Rights are closer to the core of this country than democracy or republicanism. This isn't to say the latter two aren't critical, but that those liberties, unalienable and endowed to men by their Creator, are the foundation.