My proposal for dividing the country

[kaz]

Country 1: Southern California, Las Vegas, the California coast up through the Bay Area, Hawaii, western Oregon and western Washington

Country 2: New England, New York City, Long Island, Westchester, New Jersey, Philadelphia and far east Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, DC, Northern Virginia, Detroit and Chicago

Country 3: The rest from Country 1 to Country 2 and Alaska

We divide the debt by population

We distribute military assets by population

Each of the three new Countries have a Constitutional convention which decides whether to adapt, modify or replace the Constitution.

There is a one year transition with no internal borders meaning you can move wherever you want on the division date. After that it's fine, you just need to follow the immigration laws of the country you are moving to.

And we go from there!

Country 1 and 2 will have no need for a constitution. In their enlightenment and tolerance, they will willingly submit to sharia law.

We need a special semi-autonomous territory for Tards who believe any Americans want sharia law. I suggest we carve that out of a bit of the midwest. Perhaps build a wall around it (but make them pay for it). We can open the gates once a year and let them out for 24 hours.

Here's the flaw in your argument. No, liberals will not say you want Sharia Law. The question like Communism, tax rates and other issues is ... when would you stop before we got there. The answer is never

I disagree, and here is why. I support the right of everyone to worship in what ever faith they choose without coercion. I also support the constitution we have which guarantees it, but keeps it separate from governance. I support those checks and balances and oppose any religious involvement in our laws or government.

Yet you vote for people who only think Christianity and Judaism are separate from government and they vastly overdo that separation

 

[Coyote]

Country 1: Southern California, Las Vegas, the California coast up through the Bay Area, Hawaii, western Oregon and western Washington

Country 2: New England, New York City, Long Island, Westchester, New Jersey, Philadelphia and far east Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, DC, Northern Virginia, Detroit and Chicago

Country 3: The rest from Country 1 to Country 2 and Alaska

We divide the debt by population

We distribute military assets by population

Each of the three new Countries have a Constitutional convention which decides whether to adapt, modify or replace the Constitution.

There is a one year transition with no internal borders meaning you can move wherever you want on the division date. After that it's fine, you just need to follow the immigration laws of the country you are moving to.

And we go from there!

Country 1 and 2 will have no need for a constitution. In their enlightenment and tolerance, they will willingly submit to sharia law.

We need a special semi-autonomous territory for Tards who believe any Americans want sharia law. I suggest we carve that out of a bit of the midwest. Perhaps build a wall around it (but make them pay for it). We can open the gates once a year and let them out for 24 hours.

Here's the flaw in your argument. No, liberals will not say you want Sharia Law. The question like Communism, tax rates and other issues is ... when would you stop before we got there. The answer is never

I disagree, and here is why. I support the right of everyone to worship in what ever faith they choose without coercion. I also support the constitution we have which guarantees it, but keeps it separate from governance. I support those checks and balances and oppose any religious involvement in our laws or government.

Yet you vote for people who only think Christianity and Judaism are separate from government and they vastly overdo that separation

I'm not sure where you get that idea. The people I have voted for think all religion should be seperate from government. I can't think of one policy or statement that indicates otherwise.

 

[Coyote]

Remember...the Pubwits talked about it too - and Texas never did succeed. No one is going to succeed, it's just a meaningless feel good exercise.

Like ending Obamacare, building a wall and enforcing our borders and electing a President who isn't a DC establishment hack, and those are all happening. Right now I agree with you, but the best way to ensure nothing ever goes anywhere is to stop talking about it. We need to keep the dream alive. Politics is just hate and division and it's getting worse. The right barely follow the Constitution and the left don't at all. We really should explore this option

It's an interesting idea...but I think I'd rather put the energy into promoting more political parties and weakening the hold the two big ones have on everything.

Your completely selling out to one of the two seems to be an odd way of accomplishing that

It's the only viably liberal choice in the Presidential election. Jill Stein sucks. I voted Mountain Party for my state governer.

I don't believe in not voting or voting for someone who opposes what I believe in.

If Hillary supports what you believe in then you're an institutional Democrat which again contradicts what you said.

No one believes in what I believe in. I voted for Johnson because he said he believed in what I believed in and that made him the best option even though I didn't believe him.

You sure aren't undoing the two parties by voting for them

Hillary, as a candidate, supported more of the positions I felt are important, than the other candidates. That doesn't make me an institutional Democrat. It only means there were no other acceptable candidates in a crummy election.

 

[kaz]

Country 1 and 2 will have no need for a constitution. In their enlightenment and tolerance, they will willingly submit to sharia law.

We need a special semi-autonomous territory for Tards who believe any Americans want sharia law. I suggest we carve that out of a bit of the midwest. Perhaps build a wall around it (but make them pay for it). We can open the gates once a year and let them out for 24 hours.

Here's the flaw in your argument. No, liberals will not say you want Sharia Law. The question like Communism, tax rates and other issues is ... when would you stop before we got there. The answer is never

I disagree, and here is why. I support the right of everyone to worship in what ever faith they choose without coercion. I also support the constitution we have which guarantees it, but keeps it separate from governance. I support those checks and balances and oppose any religious involvement in our laws or government.

Yet you vote for people who only think Christianity and Judaism are separate from government and they vastly overdo that separation

I'm not sure where you get that idea. The people I have voted for think all religion should be seperate from government. I can't think of one policy or statement that indicates otherwise.

You actually seriously don't see any difference between how the left treats religions? You get harder and harder for me to take seriously

 

[kaz]

Like ending Obamacare, building a wall and enforcing our borders and electing a President who isn't a DC establishment hack, and those are all happening. Right now I agree with you, but the best way to ensure nothing ever goes anywhere is to stop talking about it. We need to keep the dream alive. Politics is just hate and division and it's getting worse. The right barely follow the Constitution and the left don't at all. We really should explore this option

It's an interesting idea...but I think I'd rather put the energy into promoting more political parties and weakening the hold the two big ones have on everything.

Your completely selling out to one of the two seems to be an odd way of accomplishing that

It's the only viably liberal choice in the Presidential election. Jill Stein sucks. I voted Mountain Party for my state governer.

I don't believe in not voting or voting for someone who opposes what I believe in.

If Hillary supports what you believe in then you're an institutional Democrat which again contradicts what you said.

No one believes in what I believe in. I voted for Johnson because he said he believed in what I believed in and that made him the best option even though I didn't believe him.

You sure aren't undoing the two parties by voting for them

Hillary, as a candidate, supported more of the positions I felt are important, than the other candidates. That doesn't make me an institutional Democrat. It only means there were no other acceptable candidates in a crummy election.

If you can say "I don't believe in not voting or voting for someone who opposes what I believe in" then vote for Hillary, but you're not an institutional Democrat, that makes no sense. Explain what you think the difference is

 

[Coyote]

We need a special semi-autonomous territory for Tards who believe any Americans want sharia law. I suggest we carve that out of a bit of the midwest. Perhaps build a wall around it (but make them pay for it). We can open the gates once a year and let them out for 24 hours.

Here's the flaw in your argument. No, liberals will not say you want Sharia Law. The question like Communism, tax rates and other issues is ... when would you stop before we got there. The answer is never

I disagree, and here is why. I support the right of everyone to worship in what ever faith they choose without coercion. I also support the constitution we have which guarantees it, but keeps it separate from governance. I support those checks and balances and oppose any religious involvement in our laws or government.

Yet you vote for people who only think Christianity and Judaism are separate from government and they vastly overdo that separation

I'm not sure where you get that idea. The people I have voted for think all religion should be seperate from government. I can't think of one policy or statement that indicates otherwise.

You actually seriously don't see any difference between how the left treats religions? You get harder and harder for me to take seriously

You're constantly telling me what I think instead of listening to what I say.

Do I think the left goes nutzo on Christians? I think their zeal to divorce christian religion from the public sphere is an example of their own brand of intolerance. All the other religions are ok, but not Christianity. They go to far and it gets ridiculous (such as banning Christmas displays and openly insulting Christians).

But that doesn't mean they tolerate the incursion of ANY religion into the government whether it's biblical or tora or sharia. The right on the other hand seems to think that only Islam needs to be specifically banned from the public sphere and, in some cases, even the private one. Our constitution protects us from both religious excess and religious persecutin - we should trust it to continue to do so while allowing for freedom of religion and not give in to fear.

 

[Coyote]

It's an interesting idea...but I think I'd rather put the energy into promoting more political parties and weakening the hold the two big ones have on everything.

Your completely selling out to one of the two seems to be an odd way of accomplishing that

It's the only viably liberal choice in the Presidential election. Jill Stein sucks. I voted Mountain Party for my state governer.

I don't believe in not voting or voting for someone who opposes what I believe in.

If Hillary supports what you believe in then you're an institutional Democrat which again contradicts what you said.

No one believes in what I believe in. I voted for Johnson because he said he believed in what I believed in and that made him the best option even though I didn't believe him.

You sure aren't undoing the two parties by voting for them

Hillary, as a candidate, supported more of the positions I felt are important, than the other candidates. That doesn't make me an institutional Democrat. It only means there were no other acceptable candidates in a crummy election.

If you can say "I don't believe in not voting or voting for someone who opposes what I believe in" then vote for Hillary, but you're not an institutional Democrat, that makes no sense. Explain what you think the difference is

Out of Clinton's positions - more of them fit my views then opposed my views.
Out of the other candidates - far fewer fit.

 

[kaz]

Here's the flaw in your argument. No, liberals will not say you want Sharia Law. The question like Communism, tax rates and other issues is ... when would you stop before we got there. The answer is never

I disagree, and here is why. I support the right of everyone to worship in what ever faith they choose without coercion. I also support the constitution we have which guarantees it, but keeps it separate from governance. I support those checks and balances and oppose any religious involvement in our laws or government.

Yet you vote for people who only think Christianity and Judaism are separate from government and they vastly overdo that separation

I'm not sure where you get that idea. The people I have voted for think all religion should be seperate from government. I can't think of one policy or statement that indicates otherwise.

You actually seriously don't see any difference between how the left treats religions? You get harder and harder for me to take seriously

You're constantly telling me what I think instead of listening to what I say.

Do I think the left goes nutzo on Christians? I think their zeal to divorce christian religion from the public sphere is an example of their own brand of intolerance. All the other religions are ok, but not Christianity. They go to far and it gets ridiculous (such as banning Christmas displays and openly insulting Christians).

But that doesn't mean they tolerate the incursion of ANY religion into the government whether it's biblical or tora or sharia. The right on the other hand seems to think that only Islam needs to be specifically banned from the public sphere and, in some cases, even the private one. Our constitution protects us from both religious excess and religious persecutin - we should trust it to continue to do so while allowing for freedom of religion and not give in to fear.

You certainly made it sound like you don't see how they are treated any differently. And I see nothing the left does to limit Muslims regarding government, you have some sort of separation in your mind that isn't coming out in practice.

And you're full of shit, I don't see anyone on the right pushing government religion, give examples.

I'll give you one on the left. The left is silent to liberal judges referencing Shiria law in rulings. A simple Google query will show you that

 

[Syriusly]

Country 1: Southern California, Las Vegas, the California coast up through the Bay Area, Hawaii, western Oregon and western Washington

Country 2: New England, New York City, Long Island, Westchester, New Jersey, Philadelphia and far east Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, DC, Northern Virginia, Detroit and Chicago

Country 3: The rest from Country 1 to Country 2 and Alaska

We divide the debt by population

We distribute military assets by population

Each of the three new Countries have a Constitutional convention which decides whether to adapt, modify or replace the Constitution.

There is a one year transition with no internal borders meaning you can move wherever you want on the division date. After that it's fine, you just need to follow the immigration laws of the country you are moving to.

And we go from there!

Another American hating right winger.

 

[jillian]

Country 1: Southern California, Las Vegas, the California coast up through the Bay Area, Hawaii, western Oregon and western Washington

Country 2: New England, New York City, Long Island, Westchester, New Jersey, Philadelphia and far east Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, DC, Northern Virginia, Detroit and Chicago

Country 3: The rest from Country 1 to Country 2 and Alaska

We divide the debt by population

We distribute military assets by population

Each of the three new Countries have a Constitutional convention which decides whether to adapt, modify or replace the Constitution.

There is a one year transition with no internal borders meaning you can move wherever you want on the division date. After that it's fine, you just need to follow the immigration laws of the country you are moving to.

And we go from there!

you're kind of a moron.

but nice delusional insanity.

 

[kaz]

Your completely selling out to one of the two seems to be an odd way of accomplishing that

It's the only viably liberal choice in the Presidential election. Jill Stein sucks. I voted Mountain Party for my state governer.

I don't believe in not voting or voting for someone who opposes what I believe in.

If Hillary supports what you believe in then you're an institutional Democrat which again contradicts what you said.

No one believes in what I believe in. I voted for Johnson because he said he believed in what I believed in and that made him the best option even though I didn't believe him.

You sure aren't undoing the two parties by voting for them

Hillary, as a candidate, supported more of the positions I felt are important, than the other candidates. That doesn't make me an institutional Democrat. It only means there were no other acceptable candidates in a crummy election.

If you can say "I don't believe in not voting or voting for someone who opposes what I believe in" then vote for Hillary, but you're not an institutional Democrat, that makes no sense. Explain what you think the difference is

Out of Clinton's positions - more of them fit my views then opposed my views.
Out of the other candidates - far fewer fit.

How does that contradict that you are an institutional Democrat?

Also just FYI, I'm about to leave town for the weekend. Just saying when I drop off that's why

 

[kaz]

Country 1: Southern California, Las Vegas, the California coast up through the Bay Area, Hawaii, western Oregon and western Washington

Country 2: New England, New York City, Long Island, Westchester, New Jersey, Philadelphia and far east Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, DC, Northern Virginia, Detroit and Chicago

Country 3: The rest from Country 1 to Country 2 and Alaska

We divide the debt by population

We distribute military assets by population

Each of the three new Countries have a Constitutional convention which decides whether to adapt, modify or replace the Constitution.

There is a one year transition with no internal borders meaning you can move wherever you want on the division date. After that it's fine, you just need to follow the immigration laws of the country you are moving to.

And we go from there!

you're kind of a moron.

but nice delusional insanity.

California brought up leaving, I'm just supporting the left on this, I'm with you

 

[rdean]

The fence would be enormous. You would have to build it all the way around the southeast to keep all those rednecks from sneaking across the boarder looking to do cheap labor.

 

[rdean]

Country 1: Southern California, Las Vegas, the California coast up through the Bay Area, Hawaii, western Oregon and western Washington

Country 2: New England, New York City, Long Island, Westchester, New Jersey, Philadelphia and far east Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, DC, Northern Virginia, Detroit and Chicago

Country 3: The rest from Country 1 to Country 2 and Alaska

We divide the debt by population

We distribute military assets by population

Each of the three new Countries have a Constitutional convention which decides whether to adapt, modify or replace the Constitution.

There is a one year transition with no internal borders meaning you can move wherever you want on the division date. After that it's fine, you just need to follow the immigration laws of the country you are moving to.

And we go from there!

you're kind of a moron.

but nice delusional insanity.

California brought up leaving, I'm just supporting the left on this, I'm with you

Republicans have been talking about it for years.

Texas governor says secession possible

 

[Coyote]

It's the only viably liberal choice in the Presidential election. Jill Stein sucks. I voted Mountain Party for my state governer.

I don't believe in not voting or voting for someone who opposes what I believe in.

If Hillary supports what you believe in then you're an institutional Democrat which again contradicts what you said.

No one believes in what I believe in. I voted for Johnson because he said he believed in what I believed in and that made him the best option even though I didn't believe him.

You sure aren't undoing the two parties by voting for them

Hillary, as a candidate, supported more of the positions I felt are important, than the other candidates. That doesn't make me an institutional Democrat. It only means there were no other acceptable candidates in a crummy election.

If you can say "I don't believe in not voting or voting for someone who opposes what I believe in" then vote for Hillary, but you're not an institutional Democrat, that makes no sense. Explain what you think the difference is

Out of Clinton's positions - more of them fit my views then opposed my views.
Out of the other candidates - far fewer fit.

How does that contradict that you are an institutional Democrat?

Also just FYI, I'm about to leave town for the weekend. Just saying when I drop off that's why

What is an "institutional democrat"?

I vote on positions and when there is a candidate that more aligns with those positions - I vote for them. It's not always democrat.

 

[g5000]

Country 1: Southern California, Las Vegas, the California coast up through the Bay Area, Hawaii, western Oregon and western Washington

Country 2: New England, New York City, Long Island, Westchester, New Jersey, Philadelphia and far east Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, DC, Northern Virginia, Detroit and Chicago

Country 3: The rest from Country 1 to Country 2 and Alaska

We divide the debt by population

We distribute military assets by population

Each of the three new Countries have a Constitutional convention which decides whether to adapt, modify or replace the Constitution.

There is a one year transition with no internal borders meaning you can move wherever you want on the division date. After that it's fine, you just need to follow the immigration laws of the country you are moving to.

And we go from there!

How about you go from here?

If you don't like America, go to the country you like best.

Like Russia.

 

[Meathead]

I vote on positions and when there is a candidate that more aligns with those positions - I vote for them. It's not always democrat.

While I am not trolling you, I do find that you often have amusing opinions and prose. Your (sic) a dingbat!

 

[Meathead]

Country 1: Southern California, Las Vegas, the California coast up through the Bay Area, Hawaii, western Oregon and western Washington

Country 2: New England, New York City, Long Island, Westchester, New Jersey, Philadelphia and far east Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, DC, Northern Virginia, Detroit and Chicago

Country 3: The rest from Country 1 to Country 2 and Alaska

We divide the debt by population

We distribute military assets by population

Each of the three new Countries have a Constitutional convention which decides whether to adapt, modify or replace the Constitution.

There is a one year transition with no internal borders meaning you can move wherever you want on the division date. After that it's fine, you just need to follow the immigration laws of the country you are moving to.

And we go from there!

How about you go from here?

If you don't like America, go to the country you like best.

Like Russia.

America has changed. You might want to go to a foreign country. The Czech Republic has little to offer in terms of welfare payments btw.

 

[yiostheoy]

Country 1: Southern California, Las Vegas, the California coast up through the Bay Area, Hawaii, western Oregon and western Washington

Country 2: New England, New York City, Long Island, Westchester, New Jersey, Philadelphia and far east Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, DC, Northern Virginia, Detroit and Chicago

Country 3: The rest from Country 1 to Country 2 and Alaska

We divide the debt by population

We distribute military assets by population

Each of the three new Countries have a Constitutional convention which decides whether to adapt, modify or replace the Constitution.

There is a one year transition with no internal borders meaning you can move wherever you want on the division date. After that it's fine, you just need to follow the immigration laws of the country you are moving to.

And we go from there!

This issue was already settled by Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses Grant.

 

[Hum Dinger]

We could just give Texas back to Mexico...that would fix the immigration problem and there would be no more need for a wall!