This Country Needs to Split

No.
Go county by county, looking at how they voted in the last Presidential election, unless there is a better proxy.
Aim to get the most 'Blue' people in the 'Blue Republic', and the most 'Red' people in the 'Red Republic'. Or go to even finer granuality -- Congressional districts if they are smaller in area than counties. Or some combination of the two. I'll find a grad student who will write an algorithm for doing that, maximizing the match of political persuasion to location. In fact, I'll bet it's already been done, for gerrymandering purposes.

Some complications:

There are Hispanics who would like to split off and return to Mexico. This tendency might grow. Some of them are already raising the Mexican flag on currently-American soil. Or we might see a rebirth of the idea of 'Aztlan'.

The desire of some Blacks for their own homeland has always existed, and might be reignited by a serious move for separation. See 'the Republic of New Africa'. They should have this right.

Why force people who are not fond of each other to live together?

 

Most of us patriotic Americans aren't self-radicalizing nimrods who consume Faux and fake news on a daily basis and long for this country to be torn apart for ridiculous reasons. The Democrats are not about to "completely destroy" the United States. Nothing they're talking about is any worse than existing socialist policies, such as Medicare and Social Security. These policies have so far made the United States a greater country that provides for the basic needs of its citizens. Whatever your dystopic idea of the United States is, it's something that can't exist in the real world, or it really would end up collapsing or tearing itself apart because of the poverty and suffering it would inflict on millions of Americans while benefiting a few wealthy elites as much as, if not more than they benefit now.

 

Either you're making this up or you're repeating something that someone else made up.

 

You make some very valid points. I agree.

 

Um...banning gay marriage and banning abortions. I thought I was pretty clear about that.

 

You have noticed what the thread is about, no?

"There are fine people on both sides" -- Donald Trump.

<Mic drop>

Normal people don't wet themselves over a few dumb college kids. You do. You're proving my point, about how your masters have used dumb propaganda to terrify you into obedience.

Who's stopping you? Just walk. I suggest Russia, Iran or North Korea as nations more in line with your ideology.

 

You’re full of it. Stop being disingenuous.

 

As none of those are calls for violence (unlike what Trump does), it's wildly dishonest of you to claim they are.

As nobody except you cares about them, that just reveals your flailing desperation.

It's not the liberals here constantly cackling in glee about how they want their political opponents dead (see "any thread that mentions California".) It's not the liberals going on racist mass murder sprees. It's not the liberals that the FBI keeps arresting for domestic terrorism. It's not the liberals dreaming of a violent civil war. Our side condemns violence, yours encourages it.

Nazi propaganda faked stories of violent Jews to justify their own brownshirt violence. You're running out of the fascist playbook.

However, we _don't_ think that your violent nature justifies violence against you in return. That's how we differ from you completely. Your violent nature does, however, justify humiliating you for it, regardless of how it triggers you, and it justifies keeping a close watch on you to head off more violence.

 

No, conservatives want those under a constitutional oath to recognize that marriage is, always was and always will be a union between one man and one woman, and to act accordingly.

If you had any understanding of the Constitution, and of the Preamble in particular, you wouldn't be asking such a silly question.

No, conservatives want the right to life of unborn children to be protected.

If a five year old kid you never heard of gets murdered, what's it to you?

 

That one has been answered over and over. He's a crude, hasty, impulsive man who does not connect his brain to his mouth before using the latter.
You think -- well, I doubt you do -- but you say he was saying the neoNazis and antiFa ere 'fine' people?
Do you really think even Trump would say that Nazis are fine people?
No, he was talking about the people who came to protect the statue and those who came to destroy it.
A peaceful separation is not civil war.
A quote from a document with which you are no doubt unfamiliar, and which you would condemn condemn as 'racist':"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation"
That's not a call for civil war, except in the mouth of a slimey prosecuting attorney for the Crown, justifying hanging Irishmen.

There is no divine law that says that once a nation has establised its boundaries, those boundaries must remain forever.
Government should be by the consent of the governed.

You know zero about what's been happening on our campuses, especially our elite ones which train the future governing class.

North Korea is a socialist country. Not my taste, more like yours, actually. Free health care! And really good gun control!
Who is it, the Right or the Left, which praised Cuba to the skies for year after year?
Who is it, the Right or the Left, which were ecstatic about 'Bolivarian socialism' in Venezuela?
When the mullahs took power in Iran, almost the entire Left all over the world screamed for joy.

As Trotsky said, it is rare in politics to meet an honest opponent.
Go burn a flag.

 

Until the calculated it was electorally advantageous to switch, both Obama and Hillary were for 'banning' (I think you mean, not legally gay marriages).
Abortion was banned in the entire United States for 200 years. Until recently, it was banned in the Republic of Ireland. But things change and we change with them. I would bet that it will be legal -- well, maybe not in the last week -- in all of the North American continent in another generation or so, regardless of where boundary lines are drawn. And advances in biological technology and pharmacology make soon make the whole issue moot.

 

Lol...Stop projecting.
The only ones who want to destroy the US are the racist right-wingers who are always prattling on about secession. They're still fighting the Civil War in their heads and still angry that blacks are not their slaves anymore.
They should take their obese orange hope's advice and move to some shithole country that is copacetic with their deplorable agenda.

 

Well gee, that’s great that neither of those are your agenda. There are also plenty on the left that don’t want guns banned also. The issue is about those who DO want to impose things onto others. And there are plenty on the right who would ban gay marriage and abortions if they could just like there are those on the left who would ban guns if they could.

 

Here's one nimrod's view of the situation (I would choose the tradtional association of 'Nimrod' rather than the slang one, but only as an aspiration, not, sadly as a description.)

This is really for people on the Right. If you who are reading this are of another persuasion, it will be a waste of your time to read it.

It's wrong to see the United States as in danger of imminent destruction. As Adam Smith said, "there is a deal of ruin in a nation" To be sure, bad economic and social-economic policies can play a big role in a nation's future, but they are just one strand in a nation's web of fate.

And in any case, American collapse would not be via having the US adopt the social policies of every other civilized country in the world. We needn't follow the British and totally socialize our health care system. (Please talk to someone who lives under such a system about its drawbacks before deciding to make medical care free to everyone at the point of consumption. Someone like me.)

There are a dozen models which can be followed which tie the individual to some form of reward/not-reward depending on his own efforts in his own behalf, not simply someone who expects the state to "provide for the basic needs of its citizens". Ferociously-capitalist Singapore would be a good place to start, keeping in mind, however, its size and ethnic composition.)

In fact, America could go a long way towards socialism and be perfectly culturally happy. After WWII, the Conservative Winston Churchill was promptly turned out of office, and Labour voted in, in an enormous landslide. The leader of the Labour Party was Clement Atlee, a man of whom Churchill said, he was very modest and had a lot to be modest about. Boy, was Churchill wrong.

But Major Atlee , and the great majority of the Labour Party, were also British patriots. Conservatives who believe socialists are necessarily unpatriotic, because of their experience in the US with the American flag-burning Left and its enablers and apologists, should read a bit about Atlee. Here are some snips from Wiki:

So ... no "pouffe" to use the charming term someone applied to the Left. A pretty good war record, certainly better than that of Mr Trump and Mr Bolton.

Britain entered upon 30 years of socialism. The malign combination of nationalized industries staffed by militant trade unionists brought the country to its knees, and it required the harsh measures of Margaret Thatcher to straighten it up again. But it remained a liberal democracy, so, like Sweden, which also experienced a similar overdose of socialism, it was able to unwind those bits of socialism that it did not want.

It's culture remained sound, although, just like in America, it developed a generation of young people who became deeply alienated from their own country during the 1960s. Britain wisely remained out of Vietnam and its own "Vietnam", Northern Ireland, was much more low-key. So the same cancer that attacked American academia and has now metastasized, developed far more slowly in Britain.

Bottom line: while there are serious differences in the conservative and liberal/socialist view of proper econonomic and social policy, these are not actually fundamental Policies can be changed. But cultural values are different. A kind of cultural Second Law of Thermodynamics is always at work, and if some source of energy, from outside the system, does not continually attempt to keep order, an irreversible degeneration sets in.

That's what is happening now to America.

We need not exaggerate the speed of decay. There are a thousand variables in play, some of them of unknown value, others whose existence itself is completely unknown. We cannot predict future events -- wars, depressions, assassinations -- which are always major influences on the course of history.

The direction of motion is clear, its speed will vary, even the direction will swerve back and forth while continuing its main trend. We need all the allies we can get in preparing to do something about it, regardless on their views about the extension of Medicare or the Minimum Wage.

If there is an American counterpart on the Left of even half the calibre of Major Atlee -- we want to make a Churchill-Atlee alliance with him.

 

Well more likely full Zimbabwe or Venezuela. No halfway houses for our leftist tools

 

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see that the two party system is outdated.It"s high time Americans overhauled and modernised the political system.Democrats,Socialists, Greens, Republicans, Liberrals, MAGA (populist party) etc...would be much better reflection of nearly 350 million people.

 

A lot of people are openly conservative too. What is your point exactly?

 

Were they honestly expecting Colorado to join in on this silliness. Lol.

 

Here ya go:

[ SOURCE ]

I've had to excise some of the article to conform to length restrictions on posts. Click on SOURCE to read the whole thing but the rest is not relevant to the question.

You know, when I first heard the 'Californians fleeing to Texas' story, I couldn't believe it either. I grew up in Texas, and escaped to California, and I could not believe that anyone would want to go the other way. (John Nance Garner, FDR's VP, once quipped, "If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd rent out Texas and live in Hell." I can understand that completely. California is close to my idea of Paradise, including the 72 companions. On the other hand, there is no truth to the story that Texas was going to have a referendum to choose the state animal, and the choice was between the scorpion, the tarantula and the diamond-backed rattlesnake.)

 

I prefer to keep cali, and the other 49.

If

I forgot to ask.

In my family we have 5 couples, including my marriage of 32 years, where at least one of us voted for trump. (And a couple Johnsons)

I really don't want to get divorced and moved somewhere because I voted for Johnson. If I had known it was that big of a deal and I was going to have to leave my wife and quit my job so I can move to a new country I would have voted for Hillary.jeez.

 

Well I would have voted for Hillary if I lived in the US, despite that meaning my relatives would try to have me committed to a mental institution.
However, why would anyone have to split up, move, or do anything else? Just keep living where you are now. If you live in a Blue state, great. It will get even Bluer. Red State, same-same. More choice!!!
It's not like Yugoslavia or Cyprus etc etc. Liberal and Conservative are not ethnic categories. When there is ethnic diversity, yes, there is mass murder. Diversity is strength, you will remember. But, thank goodness, this is not the case with liberals and conservatives.

By the way -- too lazy to look him up, but I noticed last night when looking at a county-by-county map of voting in 2016, the name 'Johnson'. Who he? Libertarian?

Agree with you about Kalifornia. But we could still visit. Although the last time i visited San Francisco, a couple of years ago, a town where I used to live ... for the first time I began to feel some real anger against liberals, the same way you would if someone had been entrusted with curating the Mona Lisa, and you visited it one day and found that they had allowed it to be smeared with human excrement.

 

Can you list the major republican congressmen that vow to ban gay marriage and abortion? Because it's pretty easy to list the democrats that want to have open borders, give reparations, eliminate student loan debt, have universal healthcare, ban guns, etc.

The problem is, you're talking about a small sect of religious nuts, hillbillies, etc. I"m talking about high ranking democrat senators, presidential hopefuls, etc. But I think you know that

 

Moving the goalposts I see. No, you weren't just talking about "high ranking democrats". But I think you know that.
The point was and is that both sides have people who want to impose their beliefs onto others.

 

To be fair, those Congressmen operate on a national scale. They know a proposed law on these issues that might please their electors back home, would have no chance of passing nationally.

What we have to look at is those states where conservatives are in power, and see their policies on abortion and gay marriage. Even here, they are constrained by the national law, ie. the Supreme Court rulings, but you can see what they would like to do if they did not have those constraints. And in a 'Red State Republic', they wouldn't.

In a 'Blue America' and 'Red America', each side would be much less restrained by having a large number of the 'Other' in it. The 'Blue State Republic' could move ahead with those things dearest to its heart, the 'Red State Republic', the same. We shouldn't evade this consequence. I'm not opposed to gay marriage and defintely support abortion rights, but I acknowledge that a 'Red State Republic' is unlikely, immediately, to match my beliefs. Over time, yes, but not right away.

This might be unpleasant for 'Red Staters' living in the 'Blue State', and vice versa. There would probably be two-way immigration over the years, and each new 'Republic' would become more and more politically homogeneous, which is a good thing in itself. (Aren't you amazed by how we are hated by some of the people on here? It's like "YOU FILTHY RACIST NEO-NAZIS! ... please don't leave us!" I mean, gosh, we could drive over the border and lay their cable and fix their cars and put in new windows, even hire out as mercenaries in their army, if they had one. Where's the logic?)

 

As he pals around with white supremacists, his actions would support that theory.

But you say that peacefully saying "no" is somehow violent civil war. Do you have any standards that aren't double standards?

When a conservative deflects with 'WAAAAAA! MOMMY! EVERYONE IS CALLING ME A RACIST!", that's their admission of how badly they're failing.

It's hilarious, that you're actually comparing your tantrums to the DOI. You are _not_ oppressed just because you're not allowed to sponge and impose Christian-Sharia law. We'll keep pointing that out, you'll keep getting triggered, you won't ever get your authoritarian utopia. And that will secretly make you happy, because you'll have more reasons to claim victimhood.

There is a Constitution that says it, however, by repeatedly stressing the sovereignty of the federal government over the states. If you'd like to change that, you'll need to amend the Constitution. If your cause is that popular, you should have no problems getting 38 states to sign on.

I know that conspiracy theory hate-rants about colleges are standard FOX News propaganda spiels. Back in reality, college kids have been doing dumb things since forever. Normal people don't have constant meltdowns over it.

Even FOX News doesn't say the crazy things that you babble. You're way, way out there.

The point you should have gotten is how authoritarianism is the common factor of all those nations, and being how hardcore Trump cultists are authoritarian-followers, you'd be happy under any authoritarian regime which told you what to think and who to blame for everything.

No need to hammer on the point. You can't debate what liberals actually say, which forces you to create your alternate-reality SafeSpace. At this stage, you're only interesting as an example of the aberrant psychology displayed by hardcore conspiracy cultists.