Is a "national divorce" a pragmatic solution at this point?

[Broader Confederate States]

If you’re just going to instill me I’m not going to bother, but I’m talking about “by revolt on” aspect Einstein.

And yah people lives suck now, they’d suck even more if every state went it’s own way.

Nut again, if you’re just going to cast insults I’m not going fucking bother with you.

Revolution isn't my preferred option, if you can't tell, which is the whole point of me advocating for it to be done via Congress. However, if need be, they never specified one that had to be bloody -- a few CHAZes in a few states could probably count if they managed to kick the sitting government out.
Have a specific example of why besides "we'd all be poor", which between the feds being all cozy with war profiteering, AI threatening to eat up 45% of jobs (remindee that the Great Depression was 25%), and the collapse of oil will be the case anyway whether we stick together or not? I've already given examples of what has the potential to improve.
Then don't give me a reason to.

[Farnhamia]

Yah it is better together than apart. What you want would just impoverish msot people.

You say that like most people aren't already impoverished. You also say that like there isn't any threat of oil reaching $300 per barrel -- in spite of recent events. But oil is forecasted to have reached the point where the RoEI hits zero around 2060, well within the lifetimes of the both of us. If we do nothing and S. 4242 doesn't pass, it's a guarantee that we're going to fall into poverty; by leaving, it isn't a guarantee, but it makes the odds better.

Yah we saw how the at turned out 1861-1865

Are you drunk, young, or just a few screws short of a well oiled machine? A war started by South Carolina paranoiedly shelling Union ships isn't comparable to Congress agreeing amiably to states becoming independent and there simply being no international conflict. In fact, they're pretty much diametrically opposed situations. The court case regarding it afterward had this to say:

There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

*** Warned for flaming ***

[Broader Confederate States]

You say that like most people aren't already impoverished. You also say that like there isn't any threat of oil reaching $300 per barrel -- in spite of recent events. But oil is forecasted to have reached the point where the RoEI hits zero around 2060, well within the lifetimes of the both of us. If we do nothing and S. 4242 doesn't pass, it's a guarantee that we're going to fall into poverty; by leaving, it isn't a guarantee, but it makes the odds better.

Are you drunk, young, or just a few screws short of a well oiled machine? A war started by South Carolina paranoiedly shelling Union ships isn't comparable to Congress agreeing amiably to states becoming independent and there simply being no international conflict. In fact, they're pretty much diametrically opposed situations. The court case regarding it afterward had this to say:

*** Warned for flaming ***

Fair enough, that's on me. Sorry about that, Adamede.

[Diopolis]

If the federal government collapsed overnight, state boundaries would likely change pretty quickly(and this would initially mostly benefit red states but pretty quickly come to benefit large, powerful states at the expense of their weaker neighbors). That factor would likely be bigger than regional unions in much of the country.

Collapse of the federal government isn't the only scenario -- Texas v. White's majority opinion was that states could secede with Congressional approval or revolutions.

I mean, sure, but that is... unlikely to happen.

[Broader Confederate States]

Collapse of the federal government isn't the only scenario -- Texas v. White's majority opinion was that states could secede with Congressional approval or revolutions.

I mean, sure, but that is... unlikely to happen.

Unlikely, but it was unlikely in the 1970s for the US to start officially recognizing gay marriages. All it takes is popular demand, and Texas has had a good start on that -- a poll done in Corpus Christi found 61% approval for the idea. Unfortunately, the kind of people who see value in it tend to not see value in it for any good reasons, giving people who... disagree with them to put it mildly a good reason not to let them, but something about babies and bathwater.

[Diopolis]

I mean, sure, but that is... unlikely to happen.

Unlikely, but it was unlikely in the 1970s for the US to start officially recognizing gay marriages. All it takes is popular demand, and Texas has had a good start on that -- a poll done in Corpus Christi found 61% approval for the idea. Unfortunately, the kind of people who see value in it tend to not see value in it for any good reasons, giving people who... disagree with them to put it mildly a good reason not to let them, but something about babies and bathwater.

While Texas seceding is both the most likely secession scenario and the most likely to go well, I still doubt congress is going to sign off on it.

[Broader Confederate States]

Unlikely, but it was unlikely in the 1970s for the US to start officially recognizing gay marriages. All it takes is popular demand, and Texas has had a good start on that -- a poll done in Corpus Christi found 61% approval for the idea. Unfortunately, the kind of people who see value in it tend to not see value in it for any good reasons, giving people who... disagree with them to put it mildly a good reason not to let them, but something about babies and bathwater.

While Texas seceding is both the most likely secession scenario and the most likely to go well, I still doubt congress is going to sign off on it.

Yes, it is unlikely as it currently stands. I'm doing my best to even get people thinking about the idea of bilateral secession even if they're against it, but it doesn't help to be basically alone in a bright red sea. I was going to be interviewed by TNM to give my side of secession last year as someone that's definitely on the left side of the movement, but that was never followed through with.

[Diopolis]

While Texas seceding is both the most likely secession scenario and the most likely to go well, I still doubt congress is going to sign off on it.

Yes, it is unlikely as it currently stands. I'm doing my best to even get people thinking about the idea of bilateral secession even if they're against it, but it doesn't help to be basically alone in a bright red sea. I was going to be interviewed by TNM to give my side of secession last year as someone that's definitely on the left side of the movement, but that was never followed through with.

The TNM is a fascinating example of institutional drift because they would probably have some level of success if they stuck to their core issue but, instead, they get caught up in libertarian bugbears near constantly and turn into just another fringe group trying to primary Texas republicans from the right.

[Broader Confederate States]

Yes, it is unlikely as it currently stands. I'm doing my best to even get people thinking about the idea of bilateral secession even if they're against it, but it doesn't help to be basically alone in a bright red sea. I was going to be interviewed by TNM to give my side of secession last year as someone that's definitely on the left side of the movement, but that was never followed through with.

The TNM is a fascinating example of institutional drift because they would probably have some level of success if they stuck to their core issue but, instead, they get caught up in libertarian bugbears near constantly and turn into just another fringe group trying to primary Texas republicans from the right.

Yeah, pretty much. Unfortunate, but anything even vaguely in that direction gets infiltrated and taken over pretty quickly by the kind of people who unironically consider hoppeanism even superficially libertarian, because apparently the League is too mainstream or something.

[Diopolis]

The TNM is a fascinating example of institutional drift because they would probably have some level of success if they stuck to their core issue but, instead, they get caught up in libertarian bugbears near constantly and turn into just another fringe group trying to primary Texas republicans from the right.

Yeah, pretty much. Unfortunate, but anything even vaguely in that direction gets infiltrated and taken over pretty quickly by the kind of people who unironically consider hoppeanism even superficially libertarian, because apparently the League is too mainstream or something.

They’re not even hoppeans, though. It’s more like OG Ron Paul ideology.

[Broader Confederate States]

Yeah, pretty much. Unfortunate, but anything even vaguely in that direction gets infiltrated and taken over pretty quickly by the kind of people who unironically consider hoppeanism even superficially libertarian, because apparently the League is too mainstream or something.

They’re not even hoppeans, though. It’s more like OG Ron Paul ideology.

I mean, I've been in several groups that held some promise as non-terrible options that slowly, over time, basically became indistinguishable from the League. Even ones not based in the South (I've kept my eye on both California and Great Lakes secession movements) have shown off their... questionable side, supporting Russia for instance.

[Stellar Colonies]

They’re not even hoppeans, though. It’s more like OG Ron Paul ideology.

I mean, I've been in several groups that held some promise as non-terrible options that slowly, over time, basically became indistinguishable from the League. Even ones not based in the South (I've kept my eye on both California and Great Lakes secession movements) have shown off their... questionable side, supporting Russia for instance.

Yea, Californian secession is a joke, even without factoring in the Iranian and Russian spammers trying to astroturf it online to our annoyance.

[Diopolis]

They’re not even hoppeans, though. It’s more like OG Ron Paul ideology.

I mean, I've been in several groups that held some promise as non-terrible options that slowly, over time, basically became indistinguishable from the League. Even ones not based in the South (I've kept my eye on both California and Great Lakes secession movements) have shown off their... questionable side, supporting Russia for instance.

The rank and file of Texas secessionists are a grab bag of far rightists that range from truly esoteric conspiracy theories about russia to libertarian monetarist cranks to homegrown versions of theocrats to general conservative republicans who think the Texas government is likely to be more competent than the feds to extremist remnants of the tea party to general Alex Jones-style conspiracy theorists. The leadership are pretty much all paleolibertarians who fixate on the kinds of minor issues paleolibertarians sometimes get lost in(like eminent domain in particular projects) and think introducing government dysfunction will get them what they want.
If Texas secedes, and the likelihood of that is one of those "huge increase over a trivial base" things, it will be by taking advantage of political dysfunction and mostly done to drill for more oil.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Is a "national divorce" a pragmatic solution at this point?

Whether it is pragmatic, a national divorce could, with an emphasis on could, happen anyway. Imagine if a Democrat won a presidential race, but legislators in some U.S. red states decided to switch the electors from blue to red (giving the presidency to the Republican). Then, SCOTUS, with a conservative super-majority, decided to let the legislative changes stand. How could most blue states put up with it?

[Diopolis]

Is a "national divorce" a pragmatic solution at this point?

Whether it is pragmatic, a national divorce could, with an emphasis on could, happen anyway. Imagine if a Democrat won a presidential race, but legislators in some U.S. red states decided to switch the electors from blue to red (giving the presidency to the Republican). Then, SCOTUS, with a conservative super-majority, decided to let the legislative changes stand. How could most blue states put up with it?

Or the federal government shuts down and simply... never comes to an agreement to reopen.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Or the federal government shuts down and simply... never comes to an agreement to reopen.

That could happen, but then, sooner or later, another federal (or "central") government will probably replace it.

[San Lumen]

Whether it is pragmatic, a national divorce could, with an emphasis on could, happen anyway. Imagine if a Democrat won a presidential race, but legislators in some U.S. red states decided to switch the electors from blue to red (giving the presidency to the Republican). Then, SCOTUS, with a conservative super-majority, decided to let the legislative changes stand. How could most blue states put up with it?

Or the federal government shuts down and simply... never comes to an agreement to reopen.

There is zero chance of that occurring.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

There is zero chance of that occurring.

It would not happen officially. In any event, it really wouldn't matter. The U.S. would be history by that point (with an illegitimate president inserted by state legislatures and confirmed by SCOTUS). I hope it never happens.

[San Lumen]

There is zero chance of that occurring.

It would not happen officially. In any event, it really wouldn't matter. The U.S. would be history by that point (with an illegitimate president inserted by state legislatures and confirmed by SCOTUS). I hope it never happens.

I won't. The Supreme Court isn't going to indulge insanity like that and start a civil war.

[Union of Socialist Council-Republics]

I don't think that it could be considered remotely pragmatic considering the logistics involved, but given that the United States is doomed either way in the end, I imagine a peaceful dissolution would generally be considered preferable to bloody disintegration. Still, very unlikely to actually happen, and even less likely to be remotely workable.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

I won't. The Supreme Court isn't going to indulge insanity like that and start a civil war.

I wish I had your optimism, but I will try.

[Il Borgia Vaticano]

It's probably been mentioned already, but no, a 'national divorce' isn't pragmatic. It only would see the sowing of chaos and destruction. Any state that tries to leave our union should be met with force and crushed. Swiftly. Another extended civil war would help no one.

[Bonggongland]

We now have tens of millions of Americans alleging that the top Democrats are involved in child sex trafficking rings. Even if they're faking the belief, the willingness to fake it is alarming on its own. The closest thing to this I can think of on the left are those who smear teachers as pedos for enforcing dress codes, but even that is not alleging the rot runs to the top.

I'm not sure one could ever reason with these people. At this point, can we just give them their own country so they can wallow in their own ignorance and leave the rest of the United States alone? Obviously we should offer an opportunity for people who want out of red states to claim refugee status in blue states before the national divorce, but apart from that, is it really worth risking harm to 300 million Americans in 2024 when you can at least save the blue states by cutting the red states loose?

Fun fact, Epstein was friends with top politicans of every stripe. People saying it's a conspiracy theory are the ones who need their heads checked.

[Uiiop]

We now have tens of millions of Americans alleging that the top Democrats are involved in child sex trafficking rings. Even if they're faking the belief, the willingness to fake it is alarming on its own. The closest thing to this I can think of on the left are those who smear teachers as pedos for enforcing dress codes, but even that is not alleging the rot runs to the top.

I'm not sure one could ever reason with these people. At this point, can we just give them their own country so they can wallow in their own ignorance and leave the rest of the United States alone? Obviously we should offer an opportunity for people who want out of red states to claim refugee status in blue states before the national divorce, but apart from that, is it really worth risking harm to 300 million Americans in 2024 when you can at least save the blue states by cutting the red states loose?

Fun fact, Epstein was friends with top politicans of every stripe. People saying it's a conspiracy theory are the ones who need their heads checked.

What usually meant by that isn't actually denying what he did it's "Acting like some people are totally innocent and only interacted with him for an secret plan to kick his ass". No one really has an argument for all the sick shit on their hands. They just target more deranged versions and hope you don't pay attention.

But that's off topic.

[Il Borgia Vaticano]

We now have tens of millions of Americans alleging that the top Democrats are involved in child sex trafficking rings. Even if they're faking the belief, the willingness to fake it is alarming on its own. The closest thing to this I can think of on the left are those who smear teachers as pedos for enforcing dress codes, but even that is not alleging the rot runs to the top.

I'm not sure one could ever reason with these people. At this point, can we just give them their own country so they can wallow in their own ignorance and leave the rest of the United States alone? Obviously we should offer an opportunity for people who want out of red states to claim refugee status in blue states before the national divorce, but apart from that, is it really worth risking harm to 300 million Americans in 2024 when you can at least save the blue states by cutting the red states loose?

Fun fact, Epstein was friends with top politicans of every stripe. People saying it's a conspiracy theory are the ones who need their heads checked.

Oh my god this. Just because someone was seen with him on his plane, doesn't mean they were going to whatever that island thing they're talking about is. He was bloody rich and willing to use his money to get a good name as cover for his depravity.