This Country Needs to Split

Y'all don't know much about history. It was the Democrats who seceded, not conservatives, and it was the South that wouldn't leave peacefully, but fired on Fort Sumter and amassed a huge army within a day's walk of DC.

 

Thanks. That's literally the funniest thing I've read in weeks. I guess that's why the left wants to eliminate the electoral college, dismantle the supreme court, import as many illegal voters as possible, etc. lmao

 

Yet you couldn't refute it. You just went into wild story deflection mode.

It's an anti-democratic relic of slavery. Anyone who supports democracy would like to see it gone. By opposing it, you're essentially screaming "I know Republicans can't ever again win the popular vote!", thus confirming my point.

No they don't. Who tells you all these crazy stories, and why do you fall for them? I mean, I've never met a Democrat who wants to dismantle the Supreme Court. I'm sure one exists somewhere, but your claim that most Democrats support it is a big ol' fib on your part.

You're confirming my point about the desperation of the right. If the facts were on your side, you wouldn't have to rely on lunatic stories. You could just point to reality and "win", as the liberals do.

 

At that time, the Democrats _were_ the conservatives.

Conservatives were the violent slavers then, they're the violent fans-of-slavers now.

Don't they teach kids history these days?

 

It's worth noting that the Norse were out fought, the Portuguese (who were quietly fishing the Grand Banks for centuries) reported walled cities along the east coast and Spanish encountered cities that made the capitals of Europe look like backwater villages. The Spanish took 40 years to conquer the post-apoplyptic Mya and the Inca were 1 failed siege from victory over the Spanish.

The Natives weren't primitive, they simply had the misfortune of being in a dark age plus European disease.

 

For starters, you're far from 'mainstream'. You think the average, typical American wants open borders, taxpayer funded healthcare for illegals, transgenders reading stories to kindergarten kids, etc? Damn, turn off MSNBC for a few minutes and step outside.

This country has NEVER been a democracy. Why can't you people get that through your heads? I think libs want to change things cause they know they can't consistently win a state outside of California and New York.

This took all of 3 seconds to find: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/se...g-to-supreme-court-heal-or-face-restructuring

Then perhaps you could explain exactly why libs are so in favor of open boarders, sanctuary cities, no IDs to vote, etc?

 

spit the debt and give the repubs the south and the dems the north?

southern Confederates lost last time and they would lose again

 

Either north/south or east/west. Not sure what would be more beneficial to both sides (agriculture, imports, etc)

 

That's a standard laundry list of "things conservatives have been told to wet themselves over". That's how they keep you so obedient, by keeping you afraid. TheParty makes up a crisis, and then tells you they're the only ones who can save you.

I see. You assume that because you stare at FOX all day, that liberals must be the same. Not the case. We are not like you. I don't know any liberals who watch much TV news at all. We have better things to do.

So, you're admitting you can't win the popular vote ever again. Why didn't you just say it outright? And instead of continuing with your tyranny-of-the-minority act, why not adopt policies that don't suck?

As it doesn't talk about Democrats trying to destroy the Supreme Court, so it confirms you made that story up.

They're not. You made that up.

What's wrong with those? They're policies that moral and intelligent people support. After all, "illegals are voting" was shown to be an outright lie. I hope you're not actually pushing that lie. But then, if you are pushing it, it further reinforces my point.

 

yep, once Trump found out the voter fraud was happening on the right, he ended the investigation......

 

I have an idea. All blue states can turn in their guns and after that, they can have their own country. The rest of the riff-raff get to keep their guns, gas guzzlers, RVs, A/C, coal, oil, tractors, farms, farting cows...etc. Then we'll see who is the shithole country after a couple of years. Texas doesn't need your asses. We'll take the rest of the red states. Stupid libs think food comes from the back of a grocery store. The closest they've ever been to a farm is a petting zoo. Good luck starving.

 

You still haven’t explained what coverage you lost.
Your specialist being out of network has nothing to do with Obamacare. That has to do with the private insurer your company chose for health insurance.
Your copays and deductible increasing has to do with your company trying to lower their cost. Again, the high deductible plans actually started in 2004...well before Obamacare. It’s a way for employers to lower their costs while also putting some onus on their employees.

 

I wouldn’t hold your breath. Just like apparently I shouldn’t hold my breath waiting for you to actually explain the coverage you supposedly lost.

 

A worthy and thoughtful reply! This loose screw will try to give an equally thoughtful answer.

The first argument: You can't and you shouldn't, on historical/legal grounds.

That the US is a single unitary nation and not a voluntary association of states, where any of the members can withdraw, was indeed settled in blood. Many people on both sides fought because of slavery -- some for, some against. Others fought in order to remain a single nation, regardless of whether the South held slaves, or fought because they believed that they had the right to withdraw, and their loyalty to their state was higher than their loyalty to the Union. (As we know, Lincoln pretended to have the first view, but he was wise enough to know that a South-remaining-in-the-Union was, in time, a South without slaves, as did the Slavocracy. He was right to do this.) Probably a lot of people didn't fully separate the issues in their minds.

But is your argument

.......(1) We're stronger than you and we can just force you to do as we like (China's argument in Tibet, India's in Kashmir, the Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, the Russians' in Chechnya) and, to go back in history, Indonesia's in East Timor, Britain's in Ireland and .... oh, the irony ... Britain's argument to its 13 colonies. In other words, Might makes Right.

or is it

....... (2) The law is the law, and there is no provision in our Constitution for separation. We're not like Canada and Quebec, or the UK and Scotland.

or is it

........ (3) Something like, we would have a moral duty to prevent you from setting up your own state, regardless of the legalities and the wishes of its population, and regardless of the 'relationship of forces' as the Russians put it, because it would be a manifestation of evil. A kind of backward extension of the Bush doctrine ...intervene not to 'drain the swamp' and bring democracy to an oppressed people, but rather 'stop the swamp from being created in the first place', so that the benighted people can remain under the benevolent cultural changes going on in the unitary state.

If it's argument (1) I have no reply, or no reply using reason, except for that reason engraved on some old cannons, labelling them the Ultima Ratio Regnum.

If it's (2), well, yes. Clearly a Constitutional Amendment, bringing us into line with some other modern democracies, would be in order. Then we would have to argue the case on its merits, plus the mechanics of what would count as a binding vote: 65% of voters? Two votes, separated by a year? Obviously for something as radical as this, one would want a vote to separate to be very strongly supported and the result of a settled opinion.

If it's (3), we would have to convince you that you are mistaken. At worst, we would probably return to America circa 1960. We might even agree to incorporate in our new Constitution, which would be pretty similar to the old one, guarantees for our citzens. The only thing I can see which would really be a problem for Blue Staters trapped in a Red State would be abortion -- but that would just be the status quo -- go have it elsewhere. (I'm personally pro-Choice, but I can't pretend that a 'Red State Republic' would be.) We could try to allay other fears as well -- I can see your side worrying that as soon as we leave, we'll start burning huge amounts of fossil fuels, just for spite. It would be wise to promise not to, even to regulate cross-border environmental issues via a joint panel.

And remember, we wouldn't be just wall-to-wall fundamentalist rednecks. Many 'Blue state' people would not want to move ifrom our new republic, they would be full citizens, and would no doubt -- probably concentrated in our university towns and such cities as we have -- have representation in the elected representative bodies of the new republic.

And I regret to report that you wouldn't be able to make your new Blue state completely rothals-rein either. We would still be able to annoy each other within our own states -- it's just that each new republic would be free to evolve in its own preferred cultural direction, without the encumbrance of a large disaffected minority hanging around its neck. The right to dual citizenship, and thus the right to freely move to the 'other side' for those who were American citizens at the time of separation would have to be guaranteed.

Now to your other arguments. Yes, the American economy is very complex and highly interrelated. But ... why not just continue the status quo? No restrictions on interstate trade, with interstate taking on the new meaning. Why would either of us want to cut our own throats through tariff barriers? I assume you, like me, learned all about comparative advantage long ago, and, other things (like national security) being equal, are in favor of it. Why change a single thing in our economic arrangements? The tricky part would be if one side wanted to impose tariffs on foreign goods (eg from China) and the other didn't -- then there would be a smuggling problem. And it can't be ruled out that various special-interest groups wouldn't seize the opportunity to carve out a special advantage for themselves by putting various tariff or other restrictions on that horrible redneck wheat or those awful California oranges. But that doesn't seem to me like a serious problem, and if a single giant internal market were really that critical, we should conquer Canada.

The whole world, contra Mr Trump, is becoming more and more economically interdependent, because it's better, overall and in the long term, for all of us to do so. Not just in terms of immediate economic advantages, but because there are problems that have to be solved internationally, co operatively. Despite recent retrograde motions, that's the long term trend. It would be ten times as strong with the two new American republics.

I personally think there are several other problems that would be far more tricky:

Who gets Federal assets and liabilities, in what proportion?

What about defense? I would propose as little change as possible in our current military arrangements, but obviously there might be problems. My side might well
want a Tulsi Gabbard policy on overseas military interventions, your side might want a Hillary-the-war-hawk approach to the next conflict abroad (I don't know where my side gets the idea that your side are nearly pacifists. That woman scares me.).

Where should the boundaries be? I think it would be unnecessarily rigid to fry to adhere strictly to state lines. We want boundaries that put as many 'blue state people' inside the 'Blue Republic', and vice versa.

There will no doubt be other problems not anticipated here. But we should not be irrationally fearful of change, something my side (not always without reason) is often accused of.

The US gets along pretty well with Canada. We'll get along fine with each other.

 

There is a number of 'independence' movements, in the US.

• [ SOURCE ]

Some day the idea that a larger more powerful group of people have the right to incorporate a smaller group into the larger group's state, by force, against their will, will be seen to be as backward and reactionary as the idea that a more powerful group of people have the right to enslave them outright.

 

Can you link a quote of mine where I said I lost coverage?

 

Could you quote a few of these people who are "screaming for civil war"? Actual quotes, please.
And ... who is smooching the keisters of the white supremacist slaver types? Actual quotes, please.
It may be that a "solid majority" of the country favors burning the flag, attacking conservative lecturers on campuses, painting over a mural of George Washington, making a martyr of the thug Michael Brown and demonizing the policemen who shot him in self defense, firing people from their jobs for expression non-progressive views. I think that this is in fact the direction in which the country is moving, led by the mainstream media who go for every fake 'hate crime' the Left dream up.

That's why some of us want out. And since you believe that about half the country -- 62 million Americans are modern counterparts of the slavocracy -- why in the world do you want to keep these horrible people in the same country with you? Why not just let us go?.

 

No ... they are the majority. It's up to us to do the hard work of figuring out a way for peaceful, civilized withdrawal. We are the ones who have to leave. We have to do the intellectual groundwork, the practical preparation. Then we have to persuade enough of 'the other half' that it's a consistent application of democracy to allow people, if there are enough of them and it is their settled view, to be able to rule themselves. We'll need a Constitutional Amendment for that.

And don't think we won't find co-thinkers on the Left. Some will just be glad to get rid of us -- so the US Congress can become like the California State Legislature. Some will see the economic advantages, since we're all on Federal Welfare apparently. And some will see such an amendment as a way of advanceing their own particular desire for separation, perhaps earlier than ours. And others will just be principled, consistent, small-d democrats.

 

Trump said "his people would revolt" if he is impeached. So are you saying he was lying? Are you saying he's delusional? Which one?

 

Hmmm, so you're saying that the progressives who infected the country should get to stay and people who support the Constitution should leave? I"m ok with that, but what happens when they move back to 'conservative land' and start their insanity all over again? Better be a hell of a wall separating us

 

Stop making excuses. Write your representatives demanding that States be given the right of secession. We would be glad to dump your sorry butts. The blue states have been carrying red states for far too long.

 

Your post here illustrates you, as a conservative, doing everything you accuse Democrats of doing. But you're so wrapped up into your anger you don't see it. Weird.

I don't know when the last time Democrats & Republicans were able to work together for the benefit of the nation rather than getting stuck in partisanship. But I do recall Obama making a visit to Congress early in his first term, trying to demonstrate his personal commitment to working with them on bills to help America. I also remember being shocked by the harsh reception & treatment he received from Republicans on the Hill during that visit. He was verbally assaulted & abused in ways I don't remember any former President ever being subjected to. It startled me personally, & demonstrated the completely closed mind set Republicans had developed toward our nation's first black President. It never changed, & Obama learned to work around it as best he could. I felt Republicans embarrassed themselves & the nation with their partisan extremism then, & sadly, I still do today.

 

Do you seriously want to take a look at all the times Dems called for violence??

 

I sure as hell want NOTHING to do with people who would elect trump. You are not Americans. You just occupy space without having the slightest concept of patriotism and American principles.

 

That is the president. Answer the question and quit using 16 yo thugs as excuses.

It's all the scared little righties who are hording weapons with the intent to overthrow the government. They've been planning and plotting for decades.