If possible, should we peacefully split the country?

[Unkotare]

..... They will take everything we got, and are trying this moment. They want to take away our guns, take away our freedom, take away our Constitution. ....

And you want to cower and crawl away on your belly instead of fighting for those things (no, fighting doesn't mean you have to shoot anyone, stupid).

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And you want to cower and crawl away on your belly instead of fighting for those things (no, fighting doesn't mean you have to shoot anyone, stupid).

It doesn't? Then explain to me how you fight a majority without violence.

 

[toobfreak]

The right did start their own social media, but the left shut them down. They have since reopened, but a lot of damage done.

They reopened, but so long as they depend on a leftwing company they are not truly independent. The right needs to create their own complete gateway totally independent of leftwing communication. I think Trump is working on that.

Impossible to do when you're outnumbered or people simply don't care.

The Left have made every gain of theirs being outnumbered.

The only way to take back all these things is to separate.

The Left's not going to agree to that. They have you beat, they have the upper hand, now they are going to label you an enemy of the state and come after you. Why should they give up a thing?

Remember that no matter what you do on the local level, the federal government has the last say.

Wrong again. How did the Fed get the last say? In sports? The Fed's authority is only on matters left over which don't fall under the purview of the states. Ultimately, it is THE PEOPLE who have the last say.

Minority? How so?

The hard left are really just a small number of people in key places. YOU ARE THE MAJORITY.

Correct, they have no need to settle, and that's why we need to divide this country. They will take everything we got, and are trying this moment. They want to take away our guns, take away our freedom, take away our Constitution. They just impeached one of our Presidents for exercising his constitutional rights for crying out loud. It's really no different than when Hitler took over Germany.

Well, them's fighting words. I don't want to settle! And if they have you backpedaling, why should they? There is no settling, there is no coexistence. We are mutually incompatible. There is no empty continent to move to. You better make up your mind because if you're not willing to fight to win it all, then you've already settled on losing everything.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

..... They will take everything we got, and are trying this moment. They want to take away our guns, take away our freedom, take away our Constitution. ....

And you want to cower and crawl away on your belly instead of fighting for those things (no, fighting doesn't mean you have to shoot anyone, stupid).

When we (Texas) want to be independent and they (the U.S.) want to make us stay, we MUST defend against them if/when they invade.

Either way, for far too long, Texas has been controlled by D.C. to Texas' detriment. Things appear to NOT be changing for the better.

 

[BluesLegend]

Republicans want to secede every time they lose an election

With asshole Dems in charge who wouldn't.

This time they even tried to take over Congress

Every party either tries to take Congress over or keep it every 2 years.

Not by violent attack

I'm sorry, how many babies has your party aborted now 50+ million?

 

[Unkotare]

..... They will take everything we got, and are trying this moment. They want to take away our guns, take away our freedom, take away our Constitution. ....

And you want to cower and crawl away on your belly instead of fighting for those things (no, fighting doesn't mean you have to shoot anyone, stupid).

When we (Texas) want to be independent and they (the U.S.) want to make us stay, we MUST defend against them if/when they invade.

You can't invade your own country. Texas is a great state, but is is PART of the UNITED States of America. If DC sucks, fix DC, don't waste time with this nonsense.

 

[Unkotare]

And you want to cower and crawl away on your belly instead of fighting for those things (no, fighting doesn't mean you have to shoot anyone, stupid).

It doesn't? Then explain to me how you fight a majority without violence.

Rational adults utilize the levers of government and civics to effect change in practical ways. You're just being a little emo-bitch.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The Left's not going to agree to that. They have you beat, they have the upper hand, now they are going to label you an enemy of the state and come after you. Why should they give up a thing?

So we just sit here and capitulate? I don't think so. Like I said, it's much better to save half the country than it is to lose the entire thing. The leftist movement is growing, and outside of a civil war, is unstoppable.

We just have a different view. You are legally crossing the street in a crosswalk with the walk sign on the post lit up. A car is speeding towards you. Because you believe you have the right to be on that cross walk, you don't get out of the way. My belief is even though I have a right to be crossing the street, I'm moving out of the way of that speeding car.

Wrong again. How did the Fed get the last say? In sports? Thew Fed's authority is only on matters left over which don't fall under the purview of the states. Ultimately, it is THE PEOPLE who have the last say.

Not really. During the Bush administration, the gays threw a hissy fit. They wanted to be able to legally marry. States held a vote on the matter which most states voted down. Various leftist federal judges within that state forced the state to accept gay marriage. Finally they got it to the Supreme Court, and they ruled the same for the entire country, even though marriage is not addressed in the Constitution at all.

States don't get the final say in many matters. Our BAL for being drunk driving used to be .10. Under threat of federal highway de-funding, we had to drop ours to .08 like other states. Being forced to wear a seat belt? Unheard of many years ago; the idea the government can tell you how to protect yourself. The insurance lobby got in there, paid off the politicians, and now most every state has seat belt requirements.

You don't have as much power as you think.

The hard left are really just a small number of people in key places. YOU ARE THE MAJORITY.

Left is left whether hard or not. They own Hollywood and most all media.

Well, them's fighting words. I don't want to settle! And if they have you backpedaling, why should they? There is no settling, there is no coexistence. We are mutually incompatible. There is no empty continent to move to. You better make up your mind because if your not willing to fight to win it all, then you've already settled on losing everything.

If we divide the country into two, we don't lose everything. In fact we gained by saving half of this country. You want to bet the pot on a pair of 4's. Not a smart move unless you're a really good bluffer with a poker face.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Rational adults utilize the levers of government and civics to effect change in practical ways. You're just being a little emo-bitch.

What ways? How do you fight a majority?

 

[bripat9643]

NO. Screw you. If you are too weak to try and work toward a more perfect Union then get the fuck out. We don't need you, and you don't get to carve up MY country on your way out. There is an ocean in either direction so start swimming, loser.

It's just as much my country as it is yours. ...

Not anymore. You forfeit any claim to being a real American when you started advocating for the dissolution of the Union. You have no place in MY country any longer. GTFO.

Bullshit.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Once more, my point is that there are some natural barriers; language, distance, heritage, etc... Creating barriers based on an election is silly.

Well, the protectionism we use for the car industry here isn't natural, but it is useful. The main reason I support dividing the country is because regionalism in America is more prevalent now than it has been in a long while. While the primary divide is urban vs. rural, even urban areas of Texas are quite different in their values compared with urban areas of California, for example.

Federalism was originally a compromise to allow states a lot of power while still having a federal government to bind us together, but since about Woodrow Wilson, the federal government has grown rapidly and has taken a lot of the power of the states away. To have any meaningful amount of power left for the states, we either need to significantly shrink the federal government or split up.

That being said, I don't think either will happen. The feds will continue to grow until state governments are largely irrelevant.

Ok.

Walk me through the division. How do you divide the nation?

I think Alaska could easily become its own country. They're the only state with a budget surplus (thanks to oil revenue), and they're geographically removed from the rest of the country anyway.

Hawaii could possibly do the same. Their economy is already similar to that of many other small island nations, and I don't think the adjustment would be too much, considering that they are one of the wealthier states already.

As for the remaining 48, you could probably divide things up by the following regions:

1) West Coast Collective: California, Oregon, Nevada, and Washington. California is large enough to be its own country, but Oregon and Washington are politically similar enough to be compatible members of their nation. Nevada is more of a swing state, but it's been trending blue for a while.

2) Texas Interior: Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Kansas, and Oklahoma. This would be a somewhat diverse nation politically, but economically, these states have more in common than their political affiliations would suggest. You'd still have debates over much of policy, but the range of debate would be narrower.

3) Northeast Nation: Maine through Virginia. West Virginia and Virginia would be kind of the oddballs of the group, but they aren't as far apart culturally from the Northeast as places like Texas or Mississippi.

4) Upper Midwest: Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. This largely Rust Belt nation would have some interesting policy debates of their own, but since a lot of these states are swing states, the end results would probably be pretty moderate.

5) Southeast Syndicate: North Carolina to Florida to Arkansas. These 9 states would be largely the same politically and culturally, with a few unique local cultures (particularly in Florida and Louisiana).

6) Northwest Interior: North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. This would be the smallest nation in population. Policy and economy would largely center around oil, gas, and agriculture.

Anytime you lump Colorado with Kansas your research falls apart. Same goes for putting NM in the same room with TX.

There will NEVER be a peaceful separation of the states. Each one depends on the others but if you ask them, they'll deny it.

 

[Unkotare]

Rational adults utilize the levers of government and civics to effect change in practical ways. You're just being a little emo-bitch.

What ways? How do you fight a majority?

So you never studied Civics? Did you ever read Federalist #10?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So you never studied Civics? Did you ever read Federalist #10?

Why not just reply you are FOS and can't answer?

 

[Unkotare]

NO. Screw you. If you are too weak to try and work toward a more perfect Union then get the fuck out. We don't need you, and you don't get to carve up MY country on your way out. There is an ocean in either direction so start swimming, loser.

It's just as much my country as it is yours. ...

Not anymore. You forfeit any claim to being a real American when you started advocating for the dissolution of the Union. You have no place in MY country any longer. GTFO.

Bullshit.

Being a real American isn't about when or where some ancestor copped a squat, it's about understanding, appreciating, and adhering to the principles upon which my country was founded.

 

[Unkotare]

So you never studied Civics? Did you ever read Federalist #10?

Why not just reply you are FOS and can't answer?

I just asked you two very simple questions.

 

[bripat9643]

Once more, my point is that there are some natural barriers; language, distance, heritage, etc... Creating barriers based on an election is silly.

Well, the protectionism we use for the car industry here isn't natural, but it is useful. The main reason I support dividing the country is because regionalism in America is more prevalent now than it has been in a long while. While the primary divide is urban vs. rural, even urban areas of Texas are quite different in their values compared with urban areas of California, for example.

Federalism was originally a compromise to allow states a lot of power while still having a federal government to bind us together, but since about Woodrow Wilson, the federal government has grown rapidly and has taken a lot of the power of the states away. To have any meaningful amount of power left for the states, we either need to significantly shrink the federal government or split up.

That being said, I don't think either will happen. The feds will continue to grow until state governments are largely irrelevant.

Ok.

Walk me through the division. How do you divide the nation?

I think Alaska could easily become its own country. They're the only state with a budget surplus (thanks to oil revenue), and they're geographically removed from the rest of the country anyway.

Hawaii could possibly do the same. Their economy is already similar to that of many other small island nations, and I don't think the adjustment would be too much, considering that they are one of the wealthier states already.

As for the remaining 48, you could probably divide things up by the following regions:

1) West Coast Collective: California, Oregon, Nevada, and Washington. California is large enough to be its own country, but Oregon and Washington are politically similar enough to be compatible members of their nation. Nevada is more of a swing state, but it's been trending blue for a while.

2) Texas Interior: Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Kansas, and Oklahoma. This would be a somewhat diverse nation politically, but economically, these states have more in common than their political affiliations would suggest. You'd still have debates over much of policy, but the range of debate would be narrower.

3) Northeast Nation: Maine through Virginia. West Virginia and Virginia would be kind of the oddballs of the group, but they aren't as far apart culturally from the Northeast as places like Texas or Mississippi.

4) Upper Midwest: Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. This largely Rust Belt nation would have some interesting policy debates of their own, but since a lot of these states are swing states, the end results would probably be pretty moderate.

5) Southeast Syndicate: North Carolina to Florida to Arkansas. These 9 states would be largely the same politically and culturally, with a few unique local cultures (particularly in Florida and Louisiana).

6) Northwest Interior: North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. This would be the smallest nation in population. Policy and economy would largely center around oil, gas, and agriculture.

Anytime you lump Colorado with Kansas your research falls apart. Same goes for putting NM in the same room with TX.

There will NEVER be a peaceful separation of the states. Each one depends on the others but if you ask them, they'll deny it.

That's like saying France couldn't survive without the rest of the Roman Empire. That's obvious bullshit.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Walmarts don't do anchor stores anymore. They have only two types of stores now, a Superstore and a WalMarket and neither builds in a Mall. Both are stand alones. And there are just so many Targets to go around who also build superstores these days. Most of the other anchor stores are gone like Sears and Kmart. The Malls are dead.

Why? I mean Walmart isn't special... It needs the permission of government to do what it's done. The question has to become... Why did these communities do this? Why did they prefer a superstore over a mall?

It's a known quantity that if a WalleyWorld opens up in a town of less than X population that most of the entire main street business will board up. One good example is Delta,Co.. The Town Grandfathers blocked Walmart and Kmart to protect the local businesses. They did allow a Gibsons in but since when was a Gibson ever any competition other than a poorly run 2nd hand store. That was the way it was for years. Just 20 miles up the road,Montrose, Co. did get a Walleyworld. But there was a 4 lane US Hiway all the way. The Granddaddies die off, the Fathers must have also because the Town "Offspring" succumbed to the....... Let's just say that it was no longer what was good for the community when they allowed a Walleyworld to come into the town. The joke may be on them since the next series of Walleyworld Closings just might be their Walleyworld Superstore.

The point is, Walmart lays in the big bucks and pressured to wherever they try and come in. The Short term with that much financial and power gain is just staggering. It took Walleyworld about 20 years to get that store into Delta Colorado. Has the town grown in 50 years? No, not at all even with Walleyworld kicking in. But the Main Street was demolished when the free standing Walleyworld was built. And the town will go back to much worse condition after it shuts down.

39 miles away is another Walleyworld. Grand Junction has two of them. I don't foresee both staying open in the next 10 years. And the population here is well over 100K, closer to 200K. But both stores are stand alone stores where other stores have built not far from them to enjoy the partial benefit of that Anchor Store. Meanwhile, the Mall, just down the street has Target and has almost single handedely kept that mall open even though it's very depressing to go into many of the other parts of the Mall. Yah, I know, the Mall and the City all beem about how good it's doing but us long term locals know better.

Malls are toast these days and there are fewer and fewer anchor stores that don't want to build free standing stores.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Once more, my point is that there are some natural barriers; language, distance, heritage, etc... Creating barriers based on an election is silly.

Well, the protectionism we use for the car industry here isn't natural, but it is useful. The main reason I support dividing the country is because regionalism in America is more prevalent now than it has been in a long while. While the primary divide is urban vs. rural, even urban areas of Texas are quite different in their values compared with urban areas of California, for example.

Federalism was originally a compromise to allow states a lot of power while still having a federal government to bind us together, but since about Woodrow Wilson, the federal government has grown rapidly and has taken a lot of the power of the states away. To have any meaningful amount of power left for the states, we either need to significantly shrink the federal government or split up.

That being said, I don't think either will happen. The feds will continue to grow until state governments are largely irrelevant.

Ok.

Walk me through the division. How do you divide the nation?

I think Alaska could easily become its own country. They're the only state with a budget surplus (thanks to oil revenue), and they're geographically removed from the rest of the country anyway.

Hawaii could possibly do the same. Their economy is already similar to that of many other small island nations, and I don't think the adjustment would be too much, considering that they are one of the wealthier states already.

As for the remaining 48, you could probably divide things up by the following regions:

1) West Coast Collective: California, Oregon, Nevada, and Washington. California is large enough to be its own country, but Oregon and Washington are politically similar enough to be compatible members of their nation. Nevada is more of a swing state, but it's been trending blue for a while.

2) Texas Interior: Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Kansas, and Oklahoma. This would be a somewhat diverse nation politically, but economically, these states have more in common than their political affiliations would suggest. You'd still have debates over much of policy, but the range of debate would be narrower.

3) Northeast Nation: Maine through Virginia. West Virginia and Virginia would be kind of the oddballs of the group, but they aren't as far apart culturally from the Northeast as places like Texas or Mississippi.

4) Upper Midwest: Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. This largely Rust Belt nation would have some interesting policy debates of their own, but since a lot of these states are swing states, the end results would probably be pretty moderate.

5) Southeast Syndicate: North Carolina to Florida to Arkansas. These 9 states would be largely the same politically and culturally, with a few unique local cultures (particularly in Florida and Louisiana).

6) Northwest Interior: North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. This would be the smallest nation in population. Policy and economy would largely center around oil, gas, and agriculture.

Anytime you lump Colorado with Kansas your research falls apart. Same goes for putting NM in the same room with TX.

There will NEVER be a peaceful separation of the states. Each one depends on the others but if you ask them, they'll deny it.

We know there will never be a peaceful separation. But, there will be a separation.

What do you believe Texas would need to be independent that it does not already have?

I'll wait for your response.

 

[Desperado]

Wouldn't be a even split. There is just no way to split this in any meaningful fashion.

Te Dems get NY, Calf, Wa and Or. The Normal folks get the rest

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wouldn't be a even split. There is just no way to split this in any meaningful fashion.

Te Dems get NY, Calf, Wa and Or. The Normal folks get the rest

You forgot Mass.