NationStates

Paddy O Fernature wrote:

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:
Lumen how are they not respecting democracy by voting to leave a state? That makes zero sense. They democratically voted "we don't wanna be part of Oregon anymore" and that's "not respecting democracy?" What next? Laying flowers at the graves of American soldiers is anti American?

Honestly, the mental gymnastic needed to make that argument with a straight face is truly mind blowing.

what mental gymnastics are there?

San Lumen wrote:

Paddy O Fernature wrote:
Honestly, the mental gymnastic needed to make that argument with a straight face is truly mind blowing.

what mental gymnastics are there?

You mean besides the painfully obvious part where you are laughably contradicting yourself multiple times across now several posts just so you can continue to argue that they are not respecting democracy?

Paddy O Fernature wrote:

San Lumen wrote:what mental gymnastics are there?

You mean besides the painfully obvious part where you are laughably contradicting yourself multiple times across now several posts just so you can continue to argue that they are not respecting democracy?

I mean... I understand the question considering the south lost a war over something very similar.

Paddy O Fernature wrote:

San Lumen wrote:what mental gymnastics are there?

You mean besides the painfully obvious part where you are laughably contradicting yourself multiple times across now several posts just so you can continue to argue that they are not respecting democracy?

By your logic the Civil War shouldnt have happened and the South should have just been allowed to form their own country .

San Lumen wrote:

Paddy O Fernature wrote:
You mean besides the painfully obvious part where you are laughably contradicting yourself multiple times across now several posts just so you can continue to argue that they are not respecting democracy?

By your logic the Civil War shouldnt have happened and the South should have just been allowed to form their own country .

Yes, they should.

San Lumen wrote:

Paddy O Fernature wrote:
You mean besides the painfully obvious part where you are laughably contradicting yourself multiple times across now several posts just so you can continue to argue that they are not respecting democracy?

By your logic the Civil War shouldnt have happened and the South should have just been allowed to form their own country .

If one values democracy on principle, then yeah. The states involved democratically voted to secede.

The Two Jerseys wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
By your logic the Civil War shouldnt have happened and the South should have just been allowed to form their own country .

Yes, they should.

DOWN WITH THE TRAITORS
UP WITH THE STARS

GENERAL SHERMAN DID NOTHING WRONG
JULY 22 1864 BEST DAY OF MY LIFE

Paddy O Fernature wrote:

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:
Lumen how are they not respecting democracy by voting to leave a state? That makes zero sense. They democratically voted "we don't wanna be part of Oregon anymore" and that's "not respecting democracy?" What next? Laying flowers at the graves of American soldiers is anti American?

Honestly, the mental gymnastic needed to make that argument with a straight face is truly mind blowing.

Welcome to the third decade of the 21st Century gymnastic events.
*vaults*
These so called mental gymnastics are now often done while masked.
*handsprings into split jump on balancing beam*

Most minds were blown about a decades and a half ago thanks to sub-prime mortgages, credit default swaps, the derivative market, etc. Not to mention the parallel meth epidemic and opioid crisis.
*in mid air grabs handles of Horse*
No one's been sane the same since.
*performs uneven bar routine, but leaves tip*

It's no wonder a thread like this can exists.
*mask falls off revealing face*
It's a Kabuki dance of absurdity.
*finishes with an east-Asian inspired floor routine.

The Two Jerseys wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
By your logic the Civil War shouldnt have happened and the South should have just been allowed to form their own country .

Yes, they should.

wow ok. They violated the constitution by doing so in response to we don't like that Lincoln became president but no matter. We should have just let them go and let slavery continue in the name of freedom right?

San Lumen wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:Yes, they should.

wow ok. They violated the constitution by doing so in response to we don't like that Lincoln became president but no matter. We should have just let them go and let slavery continue in the name of freedom right?

Well they didn't vote for Lincoln, and he didn't even get 40% of the vote.

Dresderstan wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
wow ok. They violated the constitution by doing so in response to we don't like that Lincoln became president but no matter. We should have just let them go and let slavery continue in the name of freedom right?

Well they didn't vote for Lincoln, and he didn't even get 40% of the vote.

Well, in Lumen's defense, they didn't even put him on the ballot.

Ors Might wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
By your logic the Civil War shouldnt have happened and the South should have just been allowed to form their own country .

If one values democracy on principle, then yeah. The states involved democratically voted to secede.

Millions of black people weren't allowed to vote. Also some poor whites. How was that democracy?

Dresderstan wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
wow ok. They violated the constitution by doing so in response to we don't like that Lincoln became president but no matter. We should have just let them go and let slavery continue in the name of freedom right?

Well they didn't vote for Lincoln, and he didn't even get 40% of the vote.

He wasn't;t even on the ballot in several southern states. he got 39 percent of the vote because several candidates ran in hopes of throwing the election to the House. Plus the secret ballot didn't exist at the time.

San Lumen wrote:

Dresderstan wrote:Well they didn't vote for Lincoln, and he didn't even get 40% of the vote.

He wasn't;t even on the ballot in several southern states. he got 39 percent of the vote because several candidates ran in hopes of throwing the election to the House. Plus the secret ballot didn't exist at the time.

It's rather absurd on it's face.

San Lumen wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:Yes, they should.

wow ok. They violated the constitution by doing so in response to we don't like that Lincoln became president but no matter. We should have just let them go and let slavery continue in the name of freedom right?

And where in the Constitution does it say that secession is prohibited?

San Lumen wrote:

Dresderstan wrote:Well they didn't vote for Lincoln, and he didn't even get 40% of the vote.

He wasn't;t even on the ballot in several southern states. he got 39 percent of the vote because several candidates ran in hopes of throwing the election to the House. Plus the secret ballot didn't exist at the time.

Sounds more like a problem of a corrupt and useless electoral system.

Dresderstan wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
He wasn't;t even on the ballot in several southern states. he got 39 percent of the vote because several candidates ran in hopes of throwing the election to the House. Plus the secret ballot didn't exist at the time.

Sounds more like a problem of a corrupt and useless electoral system.

Things were also different at the time. the concept of ballot access did not exist in the sense it does today: there was no standardized state-issued ballot for a candidate to "appear" on. Instead, presidential ballots were printed and distributed by agents of the candidates and their parties, who organized slates of would-be electors publicly pledged to vote for a particular candidate.

The ballot we know would not exist until 1884.

Dresderstan wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
He wasn't;t even on the ballot in several southern states. he got 39 percent of the vote because several candidates ran in hopes of throwing the election to the House. Plus the secret ballot didn't exist at the time.

Sounds more like a problem of a corrupt and useless electoral system.

The usual and worst of human flaws, no doubt.

Dresderstan wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
He wasn't;t even on the ballot in several southern states. he got 39 percent of the vote because several candidates ran in hopes of throwing the election to the House. Plus the secret ballot didn't exist at the time.

Sounds more like a problem of a corrupt and useless electoral system.

It was the problem that people thought Lincoln was GUNNA TAKE AR SLAVES!!!!!!!11!!!1!!!

San Lumen wrote:

Great Algerstonia wrote:If that's the case, then have the towns vote. Farmers can vote in a town-based referendum. State-owned land does not switch jurisdiction.

And create a mess of enclaves and exclaves? That’s not practical.

Actually it works quite fine in places where there’s freedom of trade and travel already established like inside the US borders and in the EU. I mean just look at Baarle-Hertog which is a bunch of Belgian enclaves and exclaves in the Netherlands

Thermodolia wrote:

San Lumen wrote:And create a mess of enclaves and exclaves? That’s not practical.

Actually it works quite fine in places where there’s freedom of trade and travel already established like inside the US borders and in the EU. I mean just look at Baarle-Hertog which is a bunch of Belgian enclaves and exclaves in the Netherlands

Those enclaves and exclaves are significantly smaller than a county though. More like a few houses here and there. Less than 3000 people in the whole municipality of baarle hertog, some of which is not an enclave/exclave at all.

Does it scale?

And Dutch and Belgian local governments cooperate on issues that arise. Can the same be said for Democrats and Republicans?

San Lumen wrote:

Paddy O Fernature wrote:
You mean besides the painfully obvious part where you are laughably contradicting yourself multiple times across now several posts just so you can continue to argue that they are not respecting democracy?

By your logic the Civil War shouldnt have happened and the South should have just been allowed to form their own country .

If someone values democracy and self determination yes they should be for that.

If they aren’t well at least they should be honest and say that they aren’t for that. I personally am not for a federal system and instead prefer a unitary state run by a central government which is run by a constitutional military dictatorship.

San Lumen wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:Yes, they should.

wow ok. They violated the constitution by doing so in response to we don't like that Lincoln became president but no matter. We should have just let them go and let slavery continue in the name of freedom right?

Officially they didn’t, well not at the time. It was only after they lost did we decide they violated the constitution. Prior to the civil war the US was seen as a voluntary union of states and not a mandatory national entity

The Blaatschapen wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Actually it works quite fine in places where there’s freedom of trade and travel already established like inside the US borders and in the EU. I mean just look at Baarle-Hertog which is a bunch of Belgian enclaves and exclaves in the Netherlands

Those enclaves and exclaves are significantly smaller than a county though. More like a few houses here and there. Less than 3000 people in the whole municipality of baarle hertog, some of which is not an enclave/exclave at all.

Does it scale?

And Dutch and Belgian local governments cooperate on issues that arise. Can the same be said for Democrats and Republicans?

I mean they where talking about a few city sized areas within the counties. And yes it could definitely work because it’s all apart of the US and they could get the feds to do most of the governing anyway

Thermodolia wrote:

The Blaatschapen wrote:
Those enclaves and exclaves are significantly smaller than a county though. More like a few houses here and there. Less than 3000 people in the whole municipality of baarle hertog, some of which is not an enclave/exclave at all.

Does it scale?

And Dutch and Belgian local governments cooperate on issues that arise. Can the same be said for Democrats and Republicans?

I mean they where talking about a few city sized areas within the counties. And yes it could definitely work because it’s all apart of the US and they could get the feds to do most of the governing anyway

It’s not as simple as you make it out to be.

Thermodolia wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
By your logic the Civil War shouldnt have happened and the South should have just been allowed to form their own country .

If someone values democracy and self determination yes they should be for that.

If they aren’t well at least they should be honest and say that they aren’t for that. I personally am not for a federal system and instead prefer a unitary state run by a central government which is run by a constitutional military dictatorship.

Why? Lincoln should have simply let the southern states go and declared those in chains aren’t my problem and let Maryland succeed too thereby sandwiching the capital in between two successions states?