User Tag List

View Poll Results: Should the union be dissolved?

Voters
27. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    7 25.93%
  • No

    20 74.07%
+ Reply to Thread
Page 12 of 19 FirstFirst ... 28910111213141516 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 185

Thread: Is It Time to Dissolve the Union?

  1. #111
    Points: 143,765, Level: 91
    Level completed: 20%, Points required for next Level: 2,885
    Overall activity: 79.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsOverdriveVeteran
    carolina73's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    43658
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    57,490
    Points
    143,765
    Level
    91
    Thanks Given
    56,067
    Thanked 43,663x in 28,251 Posts
    Mentioned
    154 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    This is where I disagree with you. Everyone keeps acting like Americans would unite if it weren't for the "elites" or "the media" dividing them. In reality, Americans are divided naturally along various cultural, geographic, and ethnic lines that would exist regardless, and which would justify the existence of separate, independent political systems.
    Not really. Certain people benefited by separating different ethnic groups and races. Like the black leaders and Obama they used claims of, we are not given a chance, to keep their flock out of society.

    Without these people that gained monetarily from separating people, the lines would be greatly diminished. The MSM and power brokers keep tearing off the scabs.

  2. #112
    Points: 30,501, Level: 42
    Level completed: 61%, Points required for next Level: 549
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Recommendation Second ClassSocial50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Docthehun's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    210303
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    6,881
    Points
    30,501
    Level
    42
    Thanks Given
    12,998
    Thanked 4,497x in 2,935 Posts
    Mentioned
    131 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The Union survived. The entire world is relieved. Reuters

    https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/q...123920442.html

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Docthehun For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (01-25-2021)

  4. #113
    Points: 15,626, Level: 30
    Level completed: 18%, Points required for next Level: 824
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    VeteranCreated Album picturesSocial10000 Experience Points
    Rationalist's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    2002
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,391
    Points
    15,626
    Level
    30
    Thanks Given
    2,742
    Thanked 1,992x in 1,378 Posts
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by gamewell45 View Post
    I'd agree with that, however what's to say that China or Russia decided to "help" Mexico with running their government, particularly if Mexico asked for assistance? Could end up being a nightmare for Texas.
    That's a possibility, I guess, but I don't get the impression that Mexico would be interested in trying to conquer an independent Texas.

  5. #114
    Points: 15,626, Level: 30
    Level completed: 18%, Points required for next Level: 824
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    VeteranCreated Album picturesSocial10000 Experience Points
    Rationalist's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    2002
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,391
    Points
    15,626
    Level
    30
    Thanks Given
    2,742
    Thanked 1,992x in 1,378 Posts
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Private Pickle View Post
    We could get Trump on it! He knows how to close a deal!

    OH wait... Too soon?
    The negotiating would mostly occur between military officials and the new military leadership of the affected states. Sure, Biden would play a part, but he's not going to know the details of military logistics.

    This is all theoretical, of course, but it's not like we haven't seen parts of countries peacefully secede. The secession of South Sudan, for example, did involve a bloody conflict beforehand, but it ultimately led to a peaceful transition of authority.

  6. #115
    Points: 15,626, Level: 30
    Level completed: 18%, Points required for next Level: 824
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    VeteranCreated Album picturesSocial10000 Experience Points
    Rationalist's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    2002
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,391
    Points
    15,626
    Level
    30
    Thanks Given
    2,742
    Thanked 1,992x in 1,378 Posts
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DenverBrian View Post
    True, but they may not be interested in an all-fish diet.

    And of course, it's quite a lift to get food into Alaska, which is why grocery prices there are significantly higher than they are in the lower 48. Any state can import food; it's much easier if you have the agriculture already in place to grow your own food. California and Texas have that.

    I've read some science fiction that speculates about one or more ultra-rich liberals (and we have plenty of those in the tech sector) going into a Red state, buying up thousands, perhaps millions of acres of cheap land, setting up tech infrastructure, enticing thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of young liberals to come there to work...and then simply declaring a nation. The target state: Wyoming.
    I think the main reason that hasn't happened is because the federal government owns so much land west of the Mississippi. It's why all the talk of many western states being welfare queens is misplaced. A lot of solidly red states like Wyoming only are able to develop a small portion of their land, because the feds own most of it. If maps of the US only showed the private or state owned lands in many of these states, they would look a lot smaller than they normally do. As a result of this federally run property, many of these states officially get a lot of federal money, but those funds aren't really being used for the benefit of these states. They're used by the Bureau of Land Management and other agencies to maintain lands that these states can't even use.

    This also would be a complication for any western state that chooses to secede. They'd either have to buy the land from the feds, or they'd have to exist as a rather small country surrounded by US lands. The states with a better shot at independence either have a lower percentage of their land area owned by the feds or have enough resources to make due.

    At the same time, however, it also begs the question of why the feds haven't sold more of this land. We could pay down a significant portion of the national debt if we sold a good chunk of these lands.

  7. #116
    Points: 15,626, Level: 30
    Level completed: 18%, Points required for next Level: 824
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    VeteranCreated Album picturesSocial10000 Experience Points
    Rationalist's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    2002
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,391
    Points
    15,626
    Level
    30
    Thanks Given
    2,742
    Thanked 1,992x in 1,378 Posts
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    That's true. But all the tax money Texas sends to the federal government would remain in Texas. And that's what this whole "union" is really about: Money. Some people believe the fairy tales about "by the people, of the people, and for the people", but that is nothing more than a governing mythology necessary to the maintenance of ruling class authority. The truth is, the US government is fundamentally no different than any other government that has existed throughout history. It's primary and overriding purpose is extracting wealth from the population on behalf of a self-appointed ruling class. Granted, the dialectic has changed over time. We no longer speak of "pharaohs" and "emperors" but of "presidents" and "senators". But that is largely superficial. Beneath this veneer, there is a ruling class every bit as corrupt, abusive, and rapacious as any past aristocracy.
    I agree for the most part, but this only really happened by the time of the Civil War. The early 1800s had a small enough federal government that it was a lot less oppressive than most national governments of the time or of any era, really.

    That being said, we did have slavery, which obviously is pretty oppressive in its own right.

    After the Civil War ended, things rapidly got worse in terms of federal government expansion and corporate influence. Ending slavery was good, but I'm not sure if it outweighed all the negatives that came with corporate personhood (from the later interpretation of the 14th Amendment), the increasing collusion between government and big business, and the imperialistic campaigns in Latin America and the Pacific.

  8. #117
    Points: 15,626, Level: 30
    Level completed: 18%, Points required for next Level: 824
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    VeteranCreated Album picturesSocial10000 Experience Points
    Rationalist's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    2002
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,391
    Points
    15,626
    Level
    30
    Thanks Given
    2,742
    Thanked 1,992x in 1,378 Posts
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    I'm sorry, but this is just stupid. That would never happen. The economy of Texas is larger than Mexico's entire economy. And it's not like its neighboring States would just stand by and do nothing if Texas were invaded. Mexico isn't exactly known for its military aggression in any case.
    Not in the last century and a half anyway. I would agree that the odds of a Mexican offensive would be rather low. Texas would have more to worry about from cartels, but they already deal with those anyway.

  9. #118
    Points: 15,626, Level: 30
    Level completed: 18%, Points required for next Level: 824
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    VeteranCreated Album picturesSocial10000 Experience Points
    Rationalist's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    2002
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,391
    Points
    15,626
    Level
    30
    Thanks Given
    2,742
    Thanked 1,992x in 1,378 Posts
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    This is where I disagree with you. Everyone keeps acting like Americans would unite if it weren't for the "elites" or "the media" dividing them. In reality, Americans are divided naturally along various cultural, geographic, and ethnic lines that would exist regardless, and which would justify the existence of separate, independent political systems.
    There's truth to that, but I would argue that a lot of the progressive mindset is media fed. A lot of people wouldn't be progressive were it not for the propaganda they are fed by the media and academia. Woke narratives generally benefit the elite and run counter to real world experience.

    Under normal circumstances, most people would recognize the value of traditional principles like personal responsibility, ambition, and family. It's only through the active subversion of these principles via academia and media that people come to believe in nonsense like critical race theory.

    To use a foreign parallel, look at the difference between Taiwan and China. Taiwan is representative of what China would have become had the capitalists won. They maintain the traditional values of historical China and have succeeded as a friendly and wealthy nation.

    China has a mainstream culture that is largely defined by Mao and the Cultural Revolution. The corrupt values they espouse were manipulations and brainwashing forced upon them by state coercion. The vast majority of Chinese people would be more like the Taiwanese without the Communists having ruined everything.

    Hong Kong is another example. They evaded the ills of Maoism due to being protected by the British. They were allowed freedoms and free thinking. They are also more representative of the Chinese in their natural state.

  10. #119
    Points: 15,626, Level: 30
    Level completed: 18%, Points required for next Level: 824
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    VeteranCreated Album picturesSocial10000 Experience Points
    Rationalist's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    2002
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,391
    Points
    15,626
    Level
    30
    Thanks Given
    2,742
    Thanked 1,992x in 1,378 Posts
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Omar View Post
    This is probably the most honest left wing post I have ever seen.

    The left is working on all fronts to re-educate, cancel, imprison, eliminate, criminalize, minimize, marginalize, and basically make the right wing go extinct. Witness the efforts by Big Tech recently to suppress conservative speech. Meanwhile they add more Democrat voters to their roles by ensuring their dependence on the government. I don't agree with this, but I have to admit it is effective.

    If I'm honest, I believe you will likely succeed. You've made massive progress in the past decades, to the point that Georgia has elected a socialist as their most popular Senator. The next thing I'm expecting is an attack on Christianity and churches. Removing their tax exempt status, categorizing them as hate speech, that kind of thing.
    I'm just interested in seeing what the left does about Islamism. It contradicts most of their principles and would more naturally fit with social conservatism. Islamism probably would still be compatible with socialism, but it is definitely not compatible with the LGBTQ agenda or women's rights for that matter.

  11. #120
    Points: 15,626, Level: 30
    Level completed: 18%, Points required for next Level: 824
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    VeteranCreated Album picturesSocial10000 Experience Points
    Rationalist's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    2002
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,391
    Points
    15,626
    Level
    30
    Thanks Given
    2,742
    Thanked 1,992x in 1,378 Posts
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RefutingInfidels View Post
    The only ones that are talking about seceding are the right-wing Republicans, not us Leftists and Liberals. We know that if we preserve the union eventually even the southern states, those places in the country that now have large pockets of right-wing Republicans, will eventually be replaced with more liberal, progressive sentiments, attitudes, so why would we give you, a bunch of fascists, any territory? Why should the American people grant you the privilege of running off with their land, where you would create a right-wing, fascist enclave of religious ignorance, racism, bigotry? You would raise a generation of right-wing fanatics that will in the future threaten the survival of a more liberal, modern, progressive America. Our children, our great-grandchildren, will be forced to fight a bunch of white supremacists, fascists, who might even have nuclear weapons..etc. No no, we're not going to let you do that without a fight right now.

    This is our strategy. The liberals, the normal people of America, the average folks, the Leftists like me (far left), we won't do a thing. We'll wait and let all of you inbred right-wingers resort to violence first, then the US GOV will deal with you. The US military, the FBI, local law enforcement..etc. In the event that through a miracle you beat the US military, law enforcement, all of the might of the US GOV, then that's when the normal people, the liberals, the leftists would be forced to fight. However that miracle is not going to happen, because all of you deluded, irrational right-wingers are going to get clobbered by the US government. Pulverized. So we don't have to do a darn thing other than continue to elect progressives into office. That's it. Our democracy will weed out all of the right-wing fascists, the Biblefascists, KKKfascists, out of government. All of you big money worshipers, groveling at the feet of your capitalist masters, aren't going to get a darn thing. NOTHING.

    All the liberals, the normal people of America, the far-left radicals like me, all we have to do is continue electing democrats, ideally progressive democrats, into office, until we get rid of every Republican in government. If you resort to violence/terrorism, Uncle Sam will take care of you (they'll do the dirty work). We don't have to lift a finger, government forces will do it, that's why we pay taxes.

    Not one square mile of land will be given to you. So go back into the woods from where you crawled out of, where you live with the raccoons, because that's all you're ever going to get "Bubba".
    You should learn from the experiences of leftists in the past when it comes to big government. The FBI undermined most leftist movements in the US during the Vietnam era. Some of this was due to connections to Communism, but some of it also had to do with lessening antiwar sentiments.

    It probably is true that the feds are more aimed at eliminating those on the right at this point, but it's not really about white supremacy or the KKK. White nationalists in general have very little influence in this society, but boy are they your favorite strawman.

    What it's really about is government eliminating any voices that are skeptical of the growth of government or who are antiwar. If government succeeds in eliminating all those deemed to be "right wing", there are plenty of left wing people that will be next.

    So, unless you literally are just a government lackey, you should be worried about the feds as well. Any voice that runs counter to the approved narratives will be dealt with either by the government or by its minions in the media.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

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