Page 103 of 111 FirstFirst ... 35393101102103104105 ... LastLast
Results 1,021 to 1,030 of 1109

Thread: And so it has begun

  1. #1021
    All Star Sour Masher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Fantasyland
    Posts
    9,767
    Quote Originally Posted by revo View Post
    Yesterday, Texas Republicans:
    - voted to claim Biden's thrashing of Trump was "illegitimate"
    - booed Sen Cornyn because he had the gall to help on the Senate's recent gun deal
    - called for repealing the Gun Control Act of 1968, which prevents felons from purchasing guns
    - embraced ramping up anti-abortion rhetoric in schools
    - said LGBTQ folks have an "abnormal lifestyle choice"

    Wow.
    As the inevitable march of progress continues, the ever-decreasing minority of people desperate to regress have become more desperate to do any and everything they can to hold onto the old ways. It is a dangerous time, as the two sides are even enough in numbers that an all out conflict would be devastating. But time is on the side of progress for most things. Two steps forward and one back eventually moves you forward.

  2. #1022
    Administrator revo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    fuggedabboutit
    Posts
    24,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Sour Masher View Post
    As the inevitable march of progress continues, the ever-decreasing minority of people desperate to regress have become more desperate to do any and everything they can to hold onto the old ways. It is a dangerous time, as the two sides are even enough in numbers that an all out conflict would be devastating. But time is on the side of progress for most things. Two steps forward and one back eventually moves you forward.
    Honestly, I think in the next 5-10 years you will start to see a mounting secession movement, and that is almost a certainty if Dems retain the presidency in 2024. You will see Texas, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma & Tennessee start to ally to form their own country. You heard it here first.

  3. #1023
    All Star Sour Masher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Fantasyland
    Posts
    9,767
    I would not mind that happening, but it is geographically impractical, as you have other midwestern states that would want to join the southern states. Kentucky would definitely join that movement.

  4. #1024
    Administrator revo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    fuggedabboutit
    Posts
    24,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Sour Masher View Post
    I would not mind that happening, but it is geographically impractical, as you have other midwestern states that would want to join the southern states. Kentucky would definitely join that movement.
    Kentucky has a Dem governor (at least for now).

    And once these states secede, yeah, you'll have the Dakotas, Montana, Idaho do the same, and then parts of some states break apart.

    All thanks to Donald J. Trump!

  5. #1025
    All Star Sour Masher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Fantasyland
    Posts
    9,767
    Quote Originally Posted by revo View Post
    Kentucky has a Dem governor (at least for now).

    And once these states secede, yeah, you'll have the Dakotas, Montana, Idaho do the same, and then parts of some states break apart.

    All thanks to Donald J. Trump!
    I just don't see it ever happening formally. The left will simply give ground on states rights to keep the US together, but that will results into what you are talking about in practice, if not in name. We had protections before against that, but with the SC as it is, more federal laws will go down, which will lead to more variance across states.

    Also, if we did really split, the progressive states would end up being taken over eventually anyway. They would cut the bloated military spending and the Red states would up there's, like N and S Korea. Without any other nations big enough and invested enough to stop it, the big military red state coalition would look at how well the weaker blue states are doing and they would just take over and we'd be right back where we are now.

  6. #1026
    MVP The Feral Slasher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    11,779
    Quote Originally Posted by Sour Masher View Post
    I just don't see it ever happening formally. The left will simply give ground on states rights to keep the US together, but that will results into what you are talking about in practice, if not in name. We had protections before against that, but with the SC as it is, more federal laws will go down, which will lead to more variance across states.

    Also, if we did really split, the progressive states would end up being taken over eventually anyway. They would cut the bloated military spending and the Red states would up there's, like N and S Korea. Without any other nations big enough and invested enough to stop it, the big military red state coalition would look at how well the weaker blue states are doing and they would just take over and we'd be right back where we are now.
    I appreciate your cynicism....but I have to disagree with your conclusion. If the us ever broke up california, NY, illinois, DC and the NE are winning

  7. #1027
    All Star Sour Masher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Fantasyland
    Posts
    9,767
    Quote Originally Posted by The Feral Slasher View Post
    I appreciate your cynicism....but I have to disagree with your conclusion. If the us ever broke up california, NY, illinois, DC and the NE are winning
    Do you think a country split between red and blue would have the blue side spending as much on the MIC as the red side? It would be a conflict decades in the making. A lot can change in that time. If you look at N and S Korea, S Korea is one of the most prosperous countries in the world, with a quality of life absurdly higher than the North, which has next to nothing. But if the two sides had a war without outside intervention, I think North Korea with their nothing to loss attitude, including using nukes, would win. Their whole life is tied to military glory and victory. Red states would likewise end up investing an absurd amount of the GDP on the MIC and most of the civilian guns would be in their hands too.

  8. #1028
    MVP The Feral Slasher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    11,779
    Quote Originally Posted by Sour Masher View Post
    Do you think a country split between red and blue would have the blue side spending as much on the MIC as the red side? It would be a conflict decades in the making. A lot can change in that time.
    It is all hypothetical...but all the power and money is in blue states, except for Texas.

    Edit: without the "liberal agenda" to campaign against the red states would struggle. Although they would have a lot of food...hmmmm

  9. #1029
    All Star Sour Masher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Fantasyland
    Posts
    9,767
    Quote Originally Posted by The Feral Slasher View Post
    It is all hypothetical...but all the power and money is in blue states, except for Texas.

    Edit: without the "liberal agenda" to campaign against the red states would struggle. Although they would have a lot of food...hmmmm
    I edited above to compare to N and S Korea. I agree the blue states would thrive more, but that doesn't matter as much as priorities. The blue states would focus on quality of life reforms. The red states would keep spending massively on the MIC. North Korea is one of the poorest, worst countries to live in in the world. South Korea is one of the best. North Korea would win a 1 on 1 war, if for no other reason than they would use nukes and have nothing to lose. But you are right, all hypothetical, and it won't come to pass. Further erosion of national rights in favor of state's choice (the right is nothing if not pro-choice..when it comes to states), will be the most likely outcome. I feel bad for those too poor to move. I am surprised we are not seeing more movement like that as it is. Where I live, lots of folks would prefer to live in a red state, but they stay in NY and just complain.

  10. #1030
    All Star Kevin Seitzer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    8,646
    Just to take Texas as an example, yes, it is 55-45 red. But that's made up of several large cities that are 65-35 blue and a lot of rural areas that are 80-20 red. Or something like that. I don't see how you have some normal secession/civil war scenario out of that.

    You could probably say similar things about California, although it tips deeper blue on the whole than Texas does toward the red, there is still a major division between how the coastal cities tilt versus the inland agricultural areas.
    "Jesus said to them, 'Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you.'"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •