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

[Fahran]

They are heavily weighted based on population, although I disagree with your opinion that they shouldn't be.

And why should they be weighted?

The fact that most low population states are basically GOP safe havens, and their votes are worth more than other states pretty puts Republicans at an automatic advantage in national elections

That is not fair democratic process for one party to have an automatic advantage over the other solely by capitalizing on the faults of the system used in the elections

This is a single-minded approach to fairness and it is not actually the pragmatic approach that was pursued when federalism was enacted into the supreme law. Which needed to be done to get most of New England to support the Constitution.

[American Legionaries]

Indeed. But then the people in Texas who want to kill their babies will cry, and the people in New York who want guns will cry. And all of a sudden states rights are bad and icky and mean, until the next time the Feds make a law you don't like.

No one is ever going to agree completely in a democracy. Splitting the country isn’t solution. Why don’t we break up California too?

How far should we take this?

Why isn't it a solution? We put the people who think one thing together and the people who thing the next thing together, and then we have everyone agreeing.

Yes, we should break up California.

[San Lumen]

No one is ever going to agree completely in a democracy. Splitting the country isn’t solution. Why don’t we break up California too?

How far should we take this?

Why isn't it a solution? We put the people who think one thing together and the people who thing the next thing together, and then we have everyone agreeing.

Yes, we should break up California.

No one is ever going to agree completely. No one in a contested election ever gets 100 percent of the vote. No referendum is ever unanimous yes or no.

[Fahran]

Texas is indivisible.

Any Texan who disagrees is a dissident who didn't recite the pledge of allegiance or is an oath-breaker.

"Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under G-d, one and indivisible."

Same thing for the US by the way.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under G-d, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

[Ethel mermania]

Yes but it would allow Texas to be a baby loving let's kill everyone else state; and new York to be death to the babies, but no one gets a gun state.

Indeed. But then the people in Texas who want to kill their babies will cry, and the people in New York who want guns will cry. And all of a sudden states rights are bad and icky and mean, until the next time the Feds make a law you don't like.

Fuck them if they can't take a joke.

People should stop forcing their beliefs down everyone elses throat

[San Lumen]

Indeed. But then the people in Texas who want to kill their babies will cry, and the people in New York who want guns will cry. And all of a sudden states rights are bad and icky and mean, until the next time the Feds make a law you don't like.

Fuck them if they can't take a joke.

People should stop forcing their beliefs down everyone elses throat

How can you possibly have a government if people can’t legislate for those who didn’t vote them?

[Ethel mermania]

Fuck them if they can't take a joke.

People should stop forcing their beliefs down everyone elses throat

How can you possibly have a government if people can’t legislate for those who didn’t vote them?

There is no need for Iowa to legislate abortion laws for new York. As there is no need for new York to have any say to the gun laws in iowa.

[San Lumen]

How can you possibly have a government if people can’t legislate for those who didn’t vote them?

There is no need for Iowa to legislate abortion laws for new York. As there is no need for new York to have any say to the gun laws in iowa.

So no federal government and we instead have 50 separate countries?

[American Legionaries]

How can you possibly have a government if people can’t legislate for those who didn’t vote them?

There is no need for Iowa to legislate abortion laws for new York. As there is no need for new York to have any say to the gun laws in iowa.

But why does that only apply to arbitrarily divided states? Why does San Francisco get to force their ideas on me? Why does San Joaquin Street? Why does the guy two houses down?

[American Legionaries]

Why isn't it a solution? We put the people who think one thing together and the people who thing the next thing together, and then we have everyone agreeing.

Yes, we should break up California.

No one is ever going to agree completely. No one in a contested election ever gets 100 percent of the vote. No referendum is ever unanimous yes or no.

There are acceptable levels of disagreement. It isn't necessary that everyone agree 100%.

[Fahran]

There is no need for Iowa to legislate abortion laws for new York. As there is no need for new York to have any say to the gun laws in iowa.

So no federal government and we instead have 50 separate countries?

With abortion and gun rights? Yes. That's what Ethel seems to be proposing. This does not intrinsically mean the dissolution of the Union or even the end of federalism.

[San Lumen]

So no federal government and we instead have 50 separate countries?

With abortion and gun rights? Yes. That's what Ethel seems to be proposing. This does not intrinsically mean the dissolution of the Union or even the end of federalism.

What about lgbt rights? Someone gets married in one state and they move to another they aren’t married and their kids aren’t legally theirs?

[San Lumen]

There is no need for Iowa to legislate abortion laws for new York. As there is no need for new York to have any say to the gun laws in iowa.

But why does that only apply to arbitrarily divided states? Why does San Francisco get to force their ideas on me? Why does San Joaquin Street? Why does the guy two houses down?

That’s the price of democracy. They are entitled to representing just like you are. Your not a government of one.

No one is ever going to agree completely. No one in a contested election ever gets 100 percent of the vote. No referendum is ever unanimous yes or no.

There are acceptable levels of disagreement. It isn't necessary that everyone agree 100%.

Define these acceptable levels.

[Fahran]

What about lgbt rights? Someone gets married in one state and they move to another they aren’t married and their kids aren’t legally theirs?

Full faith and credit clause probably precludes that. There are even precedents that suggest this to be the case. But, again, you may want to ask Ethel about his position on that issue since I was simply clarifying what I presume his position to be.

[American Legionaries]

But why does that only apply to arbitrarily divided states? Why does San Francisco get to force their ideas on me? Why does San Joaquin Street? Why does the guy two houses down?

That’s the price of democracy. They are entitled to representing just like you are. Your not a government of one.

There are acceptable levels of disagreement. It isn't necessary that everyone agree 100%.

Define these acceptable levels.

Well Democracy costs too damn much, I want a refund.

[Ethel mermania]

With abortion and gun rights? Yes. That's what Ethel seems to be proposing. This does not intrinsically mean the dissolution of the Union or even the end of federalism.

What about lgbt rights? Someone gets married in one state and they move to another they aren’t married and their kids aren’t legally theirs?

Kids belong to the parents married or not.

[Thethen]

What about lgbt rights? Someone gets married in one state and they move to another they aren’t married and their kids aren’t legally theirs?

Kids belong to the parents married or not.

The state might not agree with that, though.

[Pangurstan]

There's no need to have 50 separate countries; states can have some autonomy without having total leeway on choosing what to ban.

[Broader Confederate States]

Texas is indivisible.

Any Texan who disagrees is a dissident who didn't recite the pledge of allegiance or is an oath-breaker.

"Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under G-d, one and indivisible."

Same thing for the US by the way.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under G-d, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Keep in mind the PoA (a non-legally binding bit of nationalistic trash) was only written in 1890 as a reaction to the CW. The union was never considered completely indivisible and indestructable -- as an example, Rhode Island (I believe) was nearly kicked out for not ratifying the 1787 Constitution; it was only the thought of being tariffed as a foreign country that made it ratify. Perpetual means "without defined end" in its context.
Texas v. White's decision agrees; while a Confederacy-style unilateral secession was considered unconstitutional, Congress has the power to let states leave and they can leave if the people stage a successful revolution, no mention of bloodshed being necessary.

[American Legionaries]

Texas is indivisible.

Any Texan who disagrees is a dissident who didn't recite the pledge of allegiance or is an oath-breaker.

"Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under G-d, one and indivisible."

Same thing for the US by the way.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under G-d, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Keep in mind the PoA (a non-legally binding bit of nationalistic trash) was only written in 1890 as a reaction to the CW. The union was never considered completely indivisible and indestructable -- as an example, Rhode Island (I believe) was nearly kicked out for not ratifying the 1787 Constitution; it was only the thought of being tariffed as a foreign country that made it ratify. Perpetual means "without defined end" in its context.
Texas v. White's decision agrees; while a Confederacy-style unilateral secession was considered unconstitutional, Congress has the power to let states leave and they can leave if the people stage a successful revolution, no mention of bloodshed being necessary.

Also, no matter what the Pledge says, people ought not to be held to pledges they make at the age of six while under duress.

[Ethel mermania]

Kids belong to the parents married or not.

The state might not agree with that, though.

No state removes a child on the basis of marital status

[Fahran]

Keep in mind the PoA (a non-legally binding bit of nationalistic trash) was only written in 1890 as a reaction to the CW. The union was never considered completely indivisible and indestructable -- as an example, Rhode Island (I believe) was nearly kicked out for not ratifying the 1787 Constitution; it was only the thought of being tariffed as a foreign country that made it ratify. Perpetual means "without defined end" in its context.
Texas v. White's decision agrees; while a Confederacy-style unilateral secession was considered unconstitutional, Congress has the power to let states leave and they can leave if the people stage a successful revolution, no mention of bloodshed being necessary.

Also, no matter what the Pledge says, people ought not to be held to pledges they make at the age of six while under duress.

Most of us made this pledge when we were eighteen - at least in Texas.

Texas is indivisible.

Any Texan who disagrees is a dissident who didn't recite the pledge of allegiance or is an oath-breaker.

"Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under G-d, one and indivisible."

Same thing for the US by the way.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under G-d, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Keep in mind the PoA (a non-legally binding bit of nationalistic trash) was only written in 1890 as a reaction to the CW. The union was never considered completely indivisible and indestructable -- as an example, Rhode Island (I believe) was nearly kicked out for not ratifying the 1787 Constitution; it was only the thought of being tariffed as a foreign country that made it ratify. Perpetual means "without defined end" in its context.
Texas v. White's decision agrees; while a Confederacy-style unilateral secession was considered unconstitutional, Congress has the power to let states leave and they can leave if the people stage a successful revolution, no mention of bloodshed being necessary.

Accusing someone of violating an oath is a bit different from asserting that such a violation is illegal under law. In terms of practical effect, secession cannot be realized in the United States because Congress and the President aren't going to allow states to leave.

And there's nothing especially objectionable about pledging allegiance to the nation of your birth.

[Broader Confederate States]

Accusing someone of violating an oath is a bit different from asserting that such a violation is illegal under law. In terms of practical effect, secession cannot be realized in the United States because Congress and the President aren't going to allow states to leave.

And there's nothing especially objectionable about pledging allegiance to the nation of your birth.

I didn't accuse you of violating an oath. As for practicality, yes -- for now. Congress isn't legally bound to demand complete, irrevocably static territory. Hell, it at present doesn't -- it is open to letting Puerto Rico secede as part of the Compact of Free Association. In the past, it's let the Philippines go, as well. Nothing states that the South, for example (as the one closest to my heart -- and, often, scorn -- as a Tennesseean) couldn't do much the same. There are even arguments to be made for it.

[Adamede]

Texas is indivisible.

Any Texan who disagrees is a dissident who didn't recite the pledge of allegiance or is an oath-breaker.

"Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under G-d, one and indivisible."

Same thing for the US by the way.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under G-d, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Rio Grande had a better flag, hence your argument is invalid.

[Fahran]

Rio Grande had a better flag, hence your argument is invalid.

Antonio Canales should have retreated and recruited more Tejanos and Texans. But the Rio Grande flag does live on as the municipal flag of Laredo, the former republic's capital.