Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 03-30-2020, 11:31 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,242
Nations break up and re-form with regularity. What kind of exceptionalism makes us exempt from the possibility? If the coasts are continually rebuffed by a minority of voters backed up by an archaic and dysfunctional electoral system, negotiations might commence sooner than most would have believed.

The leaders of the Republic of Texas movement might have to do some fancy stepping, however, to devise the white-ruled libertarian utopia they have in mind. As will the conservatives running South Flyover, but they'll have a freer hand once they've shed the opposition from the nasty Yankee libruls who are impeding them now.

We're continually reminded that we are a republic of consenting states. What happens when that's not worth the continuous compromise to maintain? How do we move forward when so many don't wish us to?

I won't even get into the size ("we're too big to manage") argument for now.
  #52  
Old 03-30-2020, 11:47 AM
msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 28,144
I don't really see that happening. In spite of the insane leftist rantings on this board, I think most Americans enjoy being a part of the United States of America. Pretty much every state feels it is better off being part of the USA than a country on it's own. And do what? Become the North American equivalent of someplace like Madagascar?
  #53  
Old 03-30-2020, 12:35 PM
Jas09 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 5,817
For a true political break-up you need a trigger. That is a cause that is not being addressed by the political system that is considered worth fighting for. Historically, a key way that has happened is when a large, powerful constituency feels they have no political voice within the system. So they work outside the system (read: revolution) in an attempt to change the system. The social issue has to be significant enough to be worth fighting and dying for. Typically things like starvation, intolerable industrial working conditions, and warfare, although slavery proved to be a strong enough one too due to the financial aspect. In the more distant past religion has been a trigger too.

So the first question: is there a politically disenfranchised group of people with enough power to sustain a meaningful breakup. I'd answer "almost". I don't think you have to go too much further down the electoral college path for it to become untenable. If Trump wins via the EC but loses by 5+% (difficult, but not impossible) the voices will get louder for a change in the system. I think if it ever gets to 10% or more, which isn't impossible if the political division stays this high and demographics give the more populous states even less voice in the system, then calls for change will be overwhelming. Of course the party benefiting from the system would resist any changes.

So the second question: will there be a cause that is powerful enough for that disenfranchised group to make movements towards political revolution. Perhaps, but I'm not sure that the Electoral College itself is enough. The disenfranchised might instead try to work within the system or wait for demographics within states like Texas to change things naturally.

But clearly if over a long enough period the GOP continues to win the presidency and control the Senate despite larger and larger deficits in popular vote there will be increasing calls for changes to the system. And when entrenched powers resist powerful interests calls for changes to the system... well that's when things get interesting.
  #54  
Old 03-30-2020, 01:44 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith537 View Post
I don't really see that happening. In spite of the insane leftist rantings on this board, I think most Americans enjoy being a part of the United States of America. Pretty much every state feels it is better off being part of the USA than a country on it's own. And do what? Become the North American equivalent of someplace like Madagascar?
Why did you choose Madagascar as an example of........well, something? I'm not seeing what you're leaving out of your argument.
  #55  
Old 03-30-2020, 05:21 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jas09 View Post
But clearly if over a long enough period the GOP continues to win the presidency and control the Senate despite larger and larger deficits in popular vote there will be increasing calls for changes to the system. And when entrenched powers resist powerful interests calls for changes to the system... well that's when things get interesting.
I find myself wondering how this would start. What means would pissed-off liberals have to break away from a system that more and more blatantly denies them the influence their numbers merit?

And then it hit me: Money. Duh.

The Pissed Off Liberals of California (a.k.a. POLCA) declare, en masse, that they'll stop paying federal income taxes and instead pay them to the State of California. (Businesses go along with this, too, diverting employee deductions, Medicare and Social Security to newly created parallel California entities.) Not every CA citizen goes along, of course, but CA being CA it's enough that federal revenues are impacted.

What do the feds do? Lay siege to Sacramento? Fine, say Silicon Valley leaders -- no more Google or other critical web infrastructure access for you. Then New York gets on board and holds the banking and financial markets hostage. Your move, D.C.

OK, I know this is silliness, but I think if the US does dissolve, the leverage will be financial, not military. "Taxation without representation" already triggered one American revolution. Why not two?
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #56  
Old 03-31-2020, 01:41 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuji View Post
... If you have states actually receiving different levels of assistance from the federal government on the basis of partisan allegiances, in a time of pandemic, that would form a credible basis on which to foresee a dissolution of the federal union.
Again, you're ignoring the homogeneity of the U.S. No matter how sharp the partisan rifts, there are no convenient geographic lines along which to split. Michigan is a state currently being persecuted by Trump, so let's use it as an example.

Blueish Michigan is adjacent to reddish Indiana. Ignoring football rivalry, is there any real animosity or culture gap between these two states? In other countries, regions that have separated or want to separate speak different languages and/or have different centuries-old traditions. Michigan BTW has the GOP in control of both houses of legislature, and voted Trump in 2016.

Some anger expresses itself along racial or religious lines. There are parts of the U.S. where Muslims are in danger; and blacks have been in danger everywhere for decades, but again: these won't lead to secessions. The three states with highest black percentages — MS, LA, SC — are controlled by the Party that hates.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
I find myself wondering how this would start... And then it hit me: Money. Duh.

The Pissed Off Liberals of California (a.k.a. POLCA) declare, en masse, that they'll stop paying federal income taxes and instead pay them to the State of California. (Businesses go along with this, too, diverting employee deductions, Medicare and Social ... OK, I know this is silliness, but I think if the US does dissolve, the leverage will be financial, not military. "Taxation without representation" already triggered one American revolution. Why not two?
If something like this happens, New York City might be the logical epicenter. The U.S.A. is dependent on the financial institutions there. BUT these are controlled by rich individuals who wouldn't want to up-end their whole raison d'être. New York City's working class storming the N.Y. Fed the way Frenchmen stormed the Bastille 231 years ago? I'll bet against it.
  #57  
Old 03-31-2020, 04:16 AM
Fuji is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: County Cork
Posts: 1,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Again, you're ignoring the homogeneity of the U.S.
No, I don't think I am. If anything, I think you're overstating the cohesive effects of American culture. I'm not unfamiliar with the US - I was born there and spent the first 35 years of my life there, largely in two very different states: New Hampshire and Texas.

Quote:
No matter how sharp the partisan rifts, there are no convenient geographic lines along which to split.
You mean... besides the state borders themselves? Even those aren't necessary - e.g. West Virginia's genesis.

Quote:
Michigan is a state currently being persecuted by Trump, so let's use it as an example.

Blueish Michigan is adjacent to reddish Indiana. Ignoring football rivalry, is there any real animosity or culture gap between these two states?
In 1861, there wasn't much animosity between Kentucky and Tennessee, or between Maryland and Virginia, either, and yet those neighboring states found themselves on opposite sides in the Civil War.

Quote:
In other countries, regions that have separated or want to separate speak different languages and/or have different centuries-old traditions.
Yes, that is usually the case, though not always. The partition of British India into the successor states of India and Pakistan was essentially founded on the profound religious and cultural differences between Hindus and Muslims. However, a quick examination of the distribution of Muslims throughout the subcontinent reveals that the later boundaries of India and Pakistan would not have been obvious to an observer a few years previously. The process by which the populations of the area accommodated themselves to this reality involved one of the largest migrations of modern times, which was effected with much bloodshed. During roughly the same time period, a similarly-sized forced migration was effected in Europe, with similar levels of violence.

Of course, these comparisons are roughly-drawn, and the ostensibly democratic and representative natures of state governments in the US in 2020 make direct comparisons difficult. However, I cite them as a reminder that the rule, not the exception, in human history is for populations to sort themselves out geographically to accommodate the political realities of the time.

In other words, if I were a liberal living in Cheyenne, or a Trumptard living in Boston, come November 2020, I might not be looking into any lengthy home improvement projects...
  #58  
Old 03-31-2020, 04:45 AM
Cabbage is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Radford, VA
Posts: 2,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Mabes View Post
Outside the lower 48? None.

I lived the first 30 years of my life in Radford, Virginia. Near Blacksburgh, near Roanoke. Lived in DC for a couple of years. Spent a week in New Orleans, the year after Katrina. Want to go back, and a week in St Louis. The one with the arch, the "real" St. Louis. Ventured across the river to East St. Louis, which is in Illinois. The tittie bars there are amazing. Topless and bottomless. Oh and on a vacation when I was a kid, we went all the way down south to Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. We went to Nashville once. Long live Elvis!

I'm not sure why any of this is relevant.

Wow! Another Radford native here.

I just skimmed this thread but I got the impression you no longer live in Virginia, but speaking of secession, I was wondering if you were aware of the WV governor (partnering with Jerry Falwell, Jr) inviting Virginia counties to leave the state and join West Virginia?
__________________
...ebius sig. This is a moebius sig. This is a mo...
(sig line courtesy of WallyM7)
  #59  
Old 03-31-2020, 06:05 AM
msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 28,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler
Why did you choose Madagascar as an example of........well, something? I'm not seeing what you're leaving out of your argument.
I just picked it as a random country with a population roughly the size of Texas with not a whole lot of global significance. A more apt political comparison might be the Balkans, but the region is only around 55 million people.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuji View Post
Yes, that is usually the case, though not always. The partition of British India into the successor states of India and Pakistan was essentially founded on the profound religious and cultural differences between Hindus and Muslims. However, a quick examination of the distribution of Muslims throughout the subcontinent reveals that the later boundaries of India and Pakistan would not have been obvious to an observer a few years previously.
The United States is a bit of a different situation as we have greater separation of church and state and aren't subject to the British Crown breaking us into our component states.
  #60  
Old 03-31-2020, 06:07 AM
msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 28,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
And then it hit me: Money. Duh.
Yeah. Duh.

What issue do you think those with money think is so important that they would facilitate breaking up the USA with the expectation of making MORE money?
  #61  
Old 03-31-2020, 06:14 AM
Face Intentionally Left Blank's Avatar
Face Intentionally Left Blank is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Hooterville
Posts: 3,203
It took me decades to stop dismissing this idea, but it's been a long slide downhill. I kept saying that we'll hit bottom, wise up and get back to a reasonable facsimile of a working government like we had for about 200 years. Things kept getting worse, then I thought, well, something bad will happen, and that will shock us all back to living in the same world, and we can go about making decisions that, while we might not all agree are right, will at least be based on the same facts everyone else based theirs on.

Then, Donald Trump was elected. I thought, well, surely this will be the rock bottom. He is an obvious idiot, liar, buffoon, liar, panderer, liar, philanderer, liar, flag-and-woman molester, liar, and narcissistic empty suit that walks (and lies) like a man. He will fuck something up, everyone will see it and agree, and we'll get that sinus rhythm we've been seeking for decades now.

And lastly, we have a literal plague. This virus has got to be one of the worst things I might have imagined, but I see no reason to believe that anything it or our president does will make us forget our differences and bring back a passing normality. I hope I'm wrong. Fox News, social media that allow ppl to read only what they want to believe, and foreign countries fomenting discord are all facilitating this divide, preventing us from healing.

There are irreconcilable differences. The government is broken, and it is set up such that is is near impossible to fix without large-scale agreement, which is the one thing we are lacking now. California, of course, is the leading candidate to separate. They have the size, the economy, and while as others point out, they aren't homogeneous, they do have the largest democratic/liberal constituency. Others may try, but I don't think they will have success, not at first. It's one thing to let the left coast moonbats go, it's another to give up, for example, New York. One of the original 13 states, and way too close to Washington for comfort and optics.

I don't know how soon it will happen. You can't predict these things with any accuracy except in hindsight. Maybe it will happen in 2021 or 2025 if the elections go really sideways, but probably not in the short-term. To leave the union requires something which one cannot bear to live under. Something willing to risk dying or killing over. A slowly boiling pot is not a good catalyst for revolution. Times of great and abrupt stress are what usually force change.

Or, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it will be a peaceful revolution, one where California gradually ceases to strictly obey the federal government. Maybe a slow boil of its own, gradually pulling away, until at last the deed is done.

I'm just a guy on a message board, but I despair at finding common ground, when we can no longer even find common facts.

Hope this is coherent. My eyes are starting to cross. . .
  #62  
Old 03-31-2020, 07:58 AM
Fuji is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: County Cork
Posts: 1,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith537 View Post
The United States is a bit of a different situation as we have greater separation of church and state and aren't subject to the British Crown breaking us into our component states.
I wouldn't be so glib about "separation of church and state" given what occurred yesterday in the Rose Garden. Moreover, the British didn't "break [British India] into its component states" - that was accomplished by the Indians themselves, as mediated by their local and regional leaders.

At any rate, my larger point stands - you (the solitary American citizen) may have little to no say into which successor state your local or regional entity adheres, should a dissolution of the US occur. This has been shown by both American and world history, which also indicates that for those unhappy with the resulting situation, migration is often an end result. In other words, the presence of regional homogeneity is not a necessary prerequisite for state dissolution.
  #63  
Old 03-31-2020, 08:14 AM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith537 View Post
Yeah. Duh.

What issue do you think those with money think is so important that they would facilitate breaking up the USA with the expectation of making MORE money?
Not everyone with money is motivated purely by the desire to make more money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Face Intentionally Left Blank;22221180There are irreconcilable differences. The government is broken, and it is set up such that is is near impossible to fix without large-scale agreement, which is the one thing we are lacking now. California, of course, is the leading candidate to separate. They have the size, the economy, and while as others point out, they aren't homogeneous, they do have the largest democratic/liberal constituency. Others may try, but I don't think they will have success, not at first. It's one thing to let the left coast moonbats go, it's another to give up, for example, New York. One of the original 13 states, and way too close to Washington for comfort and optics.

I don't know how soon it will happen. You can't predict these things with any accuracy except in hindsight. Maybe it will happen in 2021 or 2025 if the elections go [I
really[/I] sideways, but probably not in the short-term. To leave the union requires something which one cannot bear to live under. Something willing to risk dying or killing over. A slowly boiling pot is not a good catalyst for revolution. Times of great and abrupt stress are what usually force change.

Or, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it will be a peaceful revolution, one where California gradually ceases to strictly obey the federal government. Maybe a slow boil of its own, gradually pulling away, until at last the deed is done.
When 60% of the population gets tired of having the other 40% make the rules that affect all of them, something's gotta give.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #64  
Old 03-31-2020, 08:53 AM
madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 13,019
I think that it's inevitable. I've said before that we red and blue America are not countrymen. In the 90s, Gingrich lead a movement to create a rift; people in blue states were called traitors. He made it clear that his America was the real America. He made it clear that they were the true hard working salt of the earth.

Then Bush stole the election and rather than try to heal the nation's wounds he decided to invade Iraq and destabilize the Middle East. Then a black man was elected president and the Republicans made it clear that they would rather see the nation face economic collapse than let a black man be a leader of the nation. Then the red staters elected an overtly corrupt white nationalist who publicly encourages foreign nations to undermine our democracy and who clearly rules as president of red state America; he is withholding federal resources from blue states an act of open bioterrorism, an act of civil war.


A lot of us blue staters are realizing that "you know what, we hate you back red state America" and we're pretty tired of carrying you. We're tired of trying to keep you alive, we're tired of subsidizing your ignorance, we're tired of you taking our tax dollars and teaching your kids that Jesus rode a dinosaur to work. We're tired of you thinking that Sarah Palin and Donald Trump are great thinkers, we're tired of pretending we respect you. We're tired of you and we can get along fine without you. You need us, we don't need you. To quote your president, without us, red state America is just another "third world shithole."
  #65  
Old 03-31-2020, 10:01 AM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmonk28 View Post
A lot of us blue staters are realizing that "you know what, we hate you back red state America" and we're pretty tired of carrying you. We're tired of trying to keep you alive, we're tired of subsidizing your ignorance, we're tired of you taking our tax dollars and teaching your kids that Jesus rode a dinosaur to work. We're tired of you thinking that Sarah Palin and Donald Trump are great thinkers, we're tired of pretending we respect you. We're tired of you and we can get along fine without you. You need us, we don't need you. To quote your president, without us, red state America is just another "third world shithole."
To take what's generally considered the Bluest state as an example, what do you plan to do about the 1/3 of California's voting population who voted for Trump last election in this scenario? The ones who are in the majority in most of the law enforcement agencies, land area, and agriculture in the state? It seems like it's going to be a bit hard to angrily break off from people you 'don't need' when they're the ones with the firepower and legal authority, land area, and food.
  #66  
Old 03-31-2020, 10:08 AM
Lightnin''s Avatar
Lightnin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 7,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Mabes View Post
That the 50 states realize they don't all have a lot in common.
I disagree with this. I've lived in Texas, Oregon, Washington, Maryland, and Utah... and honestly, while there were some differences, they were all pretty similar. Language regionalisms ("soda", "pop", or "coke"?) were the biggest difference I ever ran into.

I now live in Canada, and I finally feel like I'm living someplace where things are different... but honestly, it's Canada, so it's not like the differences even here are all that huge.
__________________
What's the good of Science if nobody gets hurt?
  #67  
Old 03-31-2020, 10:19 AM
madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 13,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
To take what's generally considered the Bluest state as an example, what do you plan to do about the 1/3 of California's voting population who voted for Trump last election in this scenario? The ones who are in the majority in most of the law enforcement agencies, land area, and agriculture in the state? It seems like it's going to be a bit hard to angrily break off from people you 'don't need' when they're the ones with the firepower and legal authority, land area, and food.
I think that you are falsely assuming that I am saying that this is going to be an orderly, planned event. I think that it is all just falling apart. As for the fact that they have the food, we import food from all over, we can import it from them just like we do Mexico and Canada. The fact that they are so well armed, racist and violent is alarming, but we clearly aren't doing anything about that.

The tensions that created Trump are nothing to the tensions that are coming. As the impact of climate change accelerates (thanks for being hard anti-science red staters) we will not be able to keep rebuilding and we will not be able to effectively mitigate the impact. We clearly are already losing our ability to respond to crises like the current one. That will continue.

The bottom line is that you can't have a democracy when 40% of your population don't value it and you can't maintain a modern state when that same population is hostile to science. They'll come a point when they're just too heavy of load to carry and we won't be able to go on. What comes next is anyone's guess.

Last edited by madmonk28; 03-31-2020 at 10:20 AM.
  #68  
Old 03-31-2020, 10:46 AM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmonk28 View Post
I think that you are falsely assuming that I am saying that this is going to be an orderly, planned event.
No, I was wondering if you had given any thought to the fact that the majority of the land, food producers, and law enforcement personnel even in a decidedly 'blue' state like California are part of the 40% 'red' voting people that you're trying to split from. You don't appear to have actually thought about how trying to split off from the 'red' voters within a blue state would function in practice, especially the tricky part where they're the ones making up the bulk of the LEOs within your state right now.
  #69  
Old 03-31-2020, 11:50 AM
Jas09 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 5,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
No, I was wondering if you had given any thought to the fact that the majority of the land, food producers, and law enforcement personnel even in a decidedly 'blue' state like California are part of the 40% 'red' voting people that you're trying to split from. You don't appear to have actually thought about how trying to split off from the 'red' voters within a blue state would function in practice, especially the tricky part where they're the ones making up the bulk of the LEOs within your state right now.
This is not unusual in revolutions at all, historically speaking. The French peasants supported the king - didn't matter. The Russian peasants supported the Czar - didn't matter.

What matters is who controls the levers of power, primarily the military. And the military follows its leaders, typically, until they don't. Historically these things have often been triggered by the military being used to put down large uprising in the cities, some violent event being triggered, and the military refusing to kill their countrymen. Then the political leadership has some tough decisions to make.

I think this is all very far-fetched at this point, but the idea that the rural population being conservative makes political revolution impossible is just not backed up by history.
  #70  
Old 03-31-2020, 12:04 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,683
Kulak's were conservative farmers who opposed the Bolshevik takeover of Russia. Things did not turn out as well as they had hoped.
  #71  
Old 03-31-2020, 12:09 PM
madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 13,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
No, I was wondering if you had given any thought to the fact that the majority of the land, food producers, and law enforcement personnel even in a decidedly 'blue' state like California are part of the 40% 'red' voting people that you're trying to split from. You don't appear to have actually thought about how trying to split off from the 'red' voters within a blue state would function in practice, especially the tricky part where they're the ones making up the bulk of the LEOs within your state right now.
Once again, I am not saying that the dissolution will be a planned, managed event, but rather the disintegration of the state. Nor am I claiming that I will have any role in the planning and management of the dissolution. The thing about unplanned, unmanaged dissolution of states (what I'm talking about) is that they are inherently messy and will also probably be violent.

I didn't say anything about "trying to split off," I said that it's happening. Got it?
  #72  
Old 03-31-2020, 01:55 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 13,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmonk28 View Post
I think that it's inevitable. I've said before that we red and blue America are not countrymen. In the 90s, Gingrich lead a movement to create a rift; people in blue states were called traitors. He made it clear that his America was the real America. He made it clear that they were the true hard working salt of the earth.

Then Bush stole the election and rather than try to heal the nation's wounds he decided to invade Iraq and destabilize the Middle East. Then a black man was elected president and the Republicans made it clear that they would rather see the nation face economic collapse than let a black man be a leader of the nation. Then the red staters elected an overtly corrupt white nationalist who publicly encourages foreign nations to undermine our democracy and who clearly rules as president of red state America; he is withholding federal resources from blue states an act of open bioterrorism, an act of civil war.


A lot of us blue staters are realizing that "you know what, we hate you back red state America" and we're pretty tired of carrying you. We're tired of trying to keep you alive, we're tired of subsidizing your ignorance, we're tired of you taking our tax dollars and teaching your kids that Jesus rode a dinosaur to work. We're tired of you thinking that Sarah Palin and Donald Trump are great thinkers, we're tired of pretending we respect you. We're tired of you and we can get along fine without you. You need us, we don't need you. To quote your president, without us, red state America is just another "third world shithole."
You do realize that the attitudes and opinions you quote are only represented by about 10-15% of Americans, pretty much evenly divided along party lines. The majority of Americans don't really give a shit about politics. The are more concerned about making a living, taking care of their kids, putting food on the table, finding ways to increase the standard of living, planning for that next vacation, hoping their kids are better off then they are, etc. These are common traits among most Americans regardless of which party they identify with.

The media, all sides of it, spends the majority of its time focusing on the political zealots, like yourself, and creating divisiveness.

No, we as a country are not headed towards a revolution or dismantling of the Federal government as we know it.
  #73  
Old 03-31-2020, 02:18 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jas09 View Post
This is not unusual in revolutions at all, historically speaking. The French peasants supported the king - didn't matter. The Russian peasants supported the Czar - didn't matter.
Not sure what kings and czars have to do with the US, as we literally don't have either. Or peasants for that matter, I certainly wasn't talking about the people equivalent to peasants, but rather the people in and in charge of law enforcement, and who OWN (like nobles, unlike peasants) the majority of the lang and agricultural business.

Quote:
I think this is all very far-fetched at this point, but the idea that the rural population being conservative makes political revolution impossible is just not backed up by history.
Good thing that's not the idea that I posted then. The idea I'm bringing up is that if you base a revolution off of "A lot of us blue staters are realizing that 'you know what, we hate you back red state America'" without taking into account that around 1/3 of your 'blue'state are people who have and vote the same viewpoints as the 'red state america' that you hate, and they're a much higher proportion of the law enforcement, large land owners, and agricultural owners (again, not the workers) than the general population in your blue state, you're not likely to get a successful 'blue state' revolution. Throw in 'military' with LEOs if you're expecting the national guard and/or federal military to join in, they are (again) populated with people sympathetic to the red staters that it's postulated the revolution hates and wishes to split from.
  #74  
Old 03-31-2020, 02:25 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmonk28 View Post
Once again, I am not saying that the dissolution will be a planned, managed event, but rather the disintegration of the state. Nor am I claiming that I will have any role in the planning and management of the dissolution. The thing about unplanned, unmanaged dissolution of states (what I'm talking about) is that they are inherently messy and will also probably be violent.
You explicitly said "A lot of us blue staters are realizing that 'you know what, we hate you back red state America'" and that that would be the prompt for the dissolution. I'm pointing out that people who sympathise with those hated 'red state' Americans make up a large portion of your blue state, and are over represented in the people who deal out state violence (LEOs), own most land, and control the food supply. (And are also a large portion of the Federal and state military too. And the vast majortiy of armed paramilitary groups, for that matter.)

The idea that 'blue states' and 'red states' are monolithic entities who want to split from each other is not realistic, neither is the idea of 'blue states' casually going their own way when 'red state sympathisers' are the ones currently in control of an awful lot of important things like state violence, land, and food.
  #75  
Old 03-31-2020, 02:34 PM
madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 13,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
You do realize that the attitudes and opinions you quote are only represented by about 10-15% of Americans, pretty much evenly divided along party lines. The majority of Americans don't really give a shit about politics. The are more concerned about making a living, taking care of their kids, putting food on the table, finding ways to increase the standard of living, planning for that next vacation, hoping their kids are better off then they are, etc. These are common traits among most Americans regardless of which party they identify with.

The media, all sides of it, spends the majority of its time focusing on the political zealots, like yourself, and creating divisiveness.

No, we as a country are not headed towards a revolution or dismantling of the Federal government as we know it.
Nope, you are factually incorrect. We are more divided than ever. Polarization is very real and much more pronounced than at any other time in America since the civil war. https://news.usc.edu/110124/politica...e-civil-war-2/

Also, red state America's rejection of science is having real world impacts. Not just in climate change (which once again, thanks red staters for not listening to the scientists and then taking an aggressive pro-pollution stance), but also with this current crisis:

Quote:
The biggest influence in how states acted was not the number of confirmed cases, but rather politics, according to new research by a group of professors at the University of Washington. They focused on five measures taken directly from state government websites: restrictions on gatherings, school closures, restaurant restrictions, non-essential business closures, and stay-at-home orders. Trump initially downplayed the threat of the virus, and “numerous surveys have found significant partisan divides in public opinion about the severity of the coronavirus threat,” the researchers point out.
Their research showed that states with Republican governors and more Trump voters introduced social distancing policies 2.7 days later than more liberal states. “Does a 2.7 day delay matter?” the researchers write, concluding: “Given the quick doubling time of COVID-19, these delays have the potential to cause a dramatic increase in the peak volume of cases.”
https://www.motherjones.com/coronavi...cing-policies/

It's not that red staters are uneducated, they have been actively de-educated, a process by which basic facts like climate change, slavery in America and the functioning of government have been rejected as being a tool of the left. As a result, red state America is in a permanent state of enfeeblement dependent on the tax dollars of blue state Americans they hate so much. All of this works as long as blue staters always take the higher road, as long as we keep shrugging off their hate and ignorance and keep supporting them. But when you have a president who is actively diverting federal resources away from blue states where the need is greater then it becomes more difficult to ignore. Here is the red state president actively trying destabilize blue states and in the process cause the deaths of Americans.

While red staters get worked up about gay marriage, which bathroom people use, or whatever the new line of hate that is rolled out by their oligarchs, blue staters are going to start to question why they keep putting up with this. Why should we keep supporting a segment of society that shows no interest in paying their fair share, who are increasingly incapable of caring for themselves and who are aggressively belligerent towards attempts to improve their lives and who use the levers of power to push radical and undemocratic agendas.

Once blue state Americans start asking themselves what we're getting out of all of this red state America is in trouble. New York with out Mississippi is still New York; Mississippi without New York is fucked.

Last edited by madmonk28; 03-31-2020 at 02:37 PM.
  #76  
Old 03-31-2020, 02:37 PM
Mike Mabes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Wow! Another Radford native here.

I just skimmed this thread but I got the impression you no longer live in Virginia, but speaking of secession, I was wondering if you were aware of the WV governor (partnering with Jerry Falwell, Jr) inviting Virginia counties to leave the state and join West Virginia?
Cool. I left Radford in 1990, but have been back to visit many times. Are you on the "You are over 40 and remember Radford" FB group?
  #77  
Old 03-31-2020, 03:46 PM
Fuji is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: County Cork
Posts: 1,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
You do realize that the attitudes and opinions you quote are only represented by about 10-15% of Americans, pretty much evenly divided along party lines. The majority of Americans don't really give a shit about politics. The are more concerned about making a living, taking care of their kids, putting food on the table, finding ways to increase the standard of living, planning for that next vacation, hoping their kids are better off then they are, etc. These are common traits among most Americans regardless of which party they identify with.
You seem to be implying that these are societal traits unique to 21st century Americans, and not representative of the vast bulk of mankind in all times and places. If so, you are mistaken - most people everywhere and at all times have been primarily concerned about only their own immediate circle. And yet - innumerable states have dissolved into constituent polities in spite of this circumstance.

The long track record of history does not indicate that widespread political apathy in a society renders it immune to the dangers of governmental fragmentation.
  #78  
Old 03-31-2020, 04:55 PM
Cabbage is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Radford, VA
Posts: 2,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Mabes View Post
Cool. I left Radford in 1990, but have been back to visit many times. Are you on the "You are over 40 and remember Radford" FB group?

I'm over 40 (graduated RHS in '88) but I'm not on FB.
  #79  
Old 03-31-2020, 05:20 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 13,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmonk28 View Post
Nope, you are factually incorrect.
Your cite doesn't talk about the population in general. It refers to people that are party hardliners.

Do some research, instead of hitting on the first article in google about polarization that pops up.

https://intpolicydigest.org/2019/08/...bout-politics/

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/c...bout-politics/

https://qz.com/1780450/new-study-fin...ut-inequality/

https://www.dailycal.org/2019/11/26/...r-not-to-vote/
  #80  
Old 03-31-2020, 05:30 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 13,816
While the parties are more polarized the public is not:

https://www.redandblack.com/opinion/...ec6703696.html
  #81  
Old 03-31-2020, 05:44 PM
madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 13,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
While the parties are more polarized the public is not:

https://www.redandblack.com/opinion/...ec6703696.html
This piece is just wishful thinking, it points to a number of alarming stats that show Americans are divided and pessimistic and then simply ends with “we’re all Americans” tripe. Are all your cites this weak?
  #82  
Old 04-01-2020, 03:33 AM
msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 28,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmonk28 View Post
Once blue state Americans start asking themselves what we're getting out of all of this red state America is in trouble. New York with out Mississippi is still New York; Mississippi without New York is fucked.

New York and New Jersey are more than just New York City. And both get fairly conservative even an hour or so away from Manhattan. Also keep in mind that most "New Yorkers" are from somewhere else.



Also, one thing that hasn't been mentioned I think is that, if anything, most states are seeing MORE of a need for a Federal response, not less. I don't think any state is saying "oh I'd be better off if I handled this Coronavirus stuff on my own".

The big question in my mind is what happens in November. Even if Trump weren't president, having the entire country on lockdown leading up to an election is problematic.
  #83  
Old 04-01-2020, 06:14 AM
madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 13,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith537 View Post
New York and New Jersey are more than just New York City. And both get fairly conservative even an hour or so away from Manhattan. Also keep in mind that most "New Yorkers" are from somewhere else.



Also, one thing that hasn't been mentioned I think is that, if anything, most states are seeing MORE of a need for a Federal response, not less. I don't think any state is saying "oh I'd be better off if I handled this Coronavirus stuff on my own".

The big question in my mind is what happens in November. Even if Trump weren't president, having the entire country on lockdown leading up to an election is problematic.
Absolutely miss my point. Of course we need a federal response, my point is we’re not getting it and in fact blue state America puts more in federal tax dollars than it gets out, while red state America takes in more in federal tax dollars than it gives. For blue state America, the federal government is a net loss, especially if the president is diverting resources away from blue state America to punish people who don’t vote for him. I’m saying that the whole system is collapsing, not that it’s ideal for it to collapse.
  #84  
Old 04-01-2020, 07:09 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,259
The United States will eventually break up because the country was founded on a flawed value system, and those flaws still linger and shape our politics today. It is clear that some states, and territories within these states, have radically different views about how to define their America. And these divides have hardened, and moreover, these differences are being exploited.

When the president of the United States can actually get away with threatening to withhold supplies during a time of existential emergency (and boasting about it on live TV), that's not a sound byte or viral video moment; that's a prelude to a national political crisis. It's an 1850s moment. You can deny that and bury your heads in the sand all you want, but this is what we're dealing with.

And here's where I'm going with this: this pandemic, as bad as it is, is not the worst danger that's lurking behind us. That danger is climate change, and it's going to fuck us up badly. How the US, how the world, deals with this pandemic is telling. It's a test, a small test, to see how we deal with the much larger threat of climate change. We're failing this test miserably, and what comes in the next decade or so is going to be hell on earth. I'm honestly glad I don't have kids.
  #85  
Old 04-01-2020, 07:17 AM
madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 13,019
Exactly. We not only have different values, our values are diametrically opposed: support for, or opposition to gay marriage, for example. Red staters are for denying civil rights for some citizens, just like they were opposed to the civil rights movement. These are not small differences, these are foundational attitudes to what kind of country we live in.
  #86  
Old 04-01-2020, 07:26 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmonk28 View Post
Exactly. We not only have different values, our values are diametrically opposed: support for, or opposition to gay marriage, for example. Red staters are for denying civil rights for some citizens, just like they were opposed to the civil rights movement. These are not small differences, these are foundational attitudes to what kind of country we live in.
And I read your post knowing that you've spent considerable time in Afghanistan and have seen a thing or two about political divisions, so I respect your input on this.

People think it can't happen here "Well shit, we're not Afghanistan, dude." Fine, we can keep thinking that if we want. We're not Afghanistan, but we're a lot closer to some other failed democracies and states than we'd like to believe. Our Dear Leader is behaving a hell of a lot like Viktor Orban, Vladimir Putin, Recep Erdogan, and hell, I'd even compare his theatrics to Hugo Chavez and Benito Mussolini even if their ideology is different. But Trump gets his energy from somewhere, and that somewhere is from people scattered across 'Merikuh' who insist that America be defined on their terms, and theirs only. The political divide isn't just at the top; it's deep into the soil and roots of this country.

James Carville said it quite aptly on election night: this country doesn't want to be united. And he's right: it doesn't.
  #87  
Old 04-01-2020, 08:17 AM
madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 13,019
This incident is our Chernobyl. It is the moment when it is clear that the entire system is corrupt and that it is not serving huge swathes of the nation. Just like in the Soviet Union then, there is a large chunk of the country that simply doesn't want to believe it's true, so they keep saying it's not true.
  #88  
Old 04-01-2020, 09:25 AM
Brayne Ded is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 610

Red on red and blue on blue


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
Communism fell a decade before the parties were (inadvertently) permanently linked to particular colors by the media.
In the military blue represents your side and red the enemy. From what I see of US politics, it's an appropriate choice for the parties, although calling the Dems the friendlies is pushing it a bit.

Last edited by Brayne Ded; 04-01-2020 at 09:25 AM.
  #89  
Old 04-01-2020, 09:27 AM
Brayne Ded is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 610

Breaking up is (not so) hard to do


Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
The United States will eventually break up because the country was founded on a flawed value system, and those flaws still linger and shape our politics today. It is clear that some states, and territories within these states, have radically different views about how to define their America. And these divides have hardened, and moreover, these differences are being exploited.
Very likely, but this pandemic won't do it, it will be an economic crash that does.
  #90  
Old 04-01-2020, 10:08 AM
madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 13,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brayne Ded View Post
Very likely, but this pandemic won't do it, it will be an economic crash that does.
Like the one coming out of this pandemic?
  #91  
Old 04-01-2020, 11:15 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jas09 View Post
This is not unusual in revolutions at all, historically speaking. The French peasants supported the king - didn't matter. The Russian peasants supported the Czar - didn't matter.
Do you have cites for these? Although the initial impetus for the French Revolution came from the middle class (Tiers État), I thought the lower classes soon took sides against the King.
  #92  
Old 04-01-2020, 11:39 AM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmonk28 View Post
Once blue state Americans start asking themselves what we're getting out of all of this red state America is in trouble. New York with out Mississippi is still New York; Mississippi without New York is fucked.
New York on it's own is still over 1/3 Red State, it's not monolithically blue - over 1/3 of New York State's voters (36%) voted for Trump in 2016 even though it was obviously not a swing state. The idea that the 'Blue State' of New York can cleanly separate from all those 'Red State' voters when their own 'blue' state has a lot of 'red' in it doesn't stand up to reality. And, again, that Red State support tends to be in law enforcement, military, agricultural producers, and large land owners, which makes any sort of split really messy, since the 'reds' have the advantage in violence, food, and land.

I don't think it's impossible for the US to break up, but the 'blue state' 'red state' split doesn't actually work like people seem to think it does.
  #93  
Old 04-01-2020, 12:36 PM
Jas09 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 5,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Do you have cites for these? Although the initial impetus for the French Revolution came from the middle class (Tiers État), I thought the lower classes soon took sides against the King.
You're right. All of the lower classes did revolt, including the landless peasantry in the farmlands burning down manor houses (I believe this happened in both countries actually).

I should have been more precise in my analogy - rural land-owners (landed gentry in France, and Kulaks in Russia) were generally opposed to the revolutions there. The fact that they owned the land (and in theory the production of food) didn't really matter.

I'm trying to come up with an analogue for modern-day poor conservative rural voters and the best I can think of is the peasants of the Vendee taking up arms in a counter-revolutionary effort. Their reasons were largely cultural and religious, not economic, which I think maps pretty well to heavily conservative rural regions.

The thrust of my point is this: who owns the land doesn't really matter. What matters is bodies and who controls the levers of power (largely city centers, banks, and the military). I do suppose it is possible that conservative rural land-owners could raise an army or support an invading army, a la Vendee.
  #94  
Old 04-01-2020, 02:08 PM
madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 13,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
New York on it's own is still over 1/3 Red State, it's not monolithically blue - over 1/3 of New York State's voters (36%) voted for Trump in 2016 even though it was obviously not a swing state. The idea that the 'Blue State' of New York can cleanly separate from all those 'Red State' voters when their own 'blue' state has a lot of 'red' in it doesn't stand up to reality. And, again, that Red State support tends to be in law enforcement, military, agricultural producers, and large land owners, which makes any sort of split really messy, since the 'reds' have the advantage in violence, food, and land.

I don't think it's impossible for the US to break up, but the 'blue state' 'red state' split doesn't actually work like people seem to think it does.
Blue state America without red state America is western Europe. Red state America without blue state America is a third world shithole.
  #95  
Old 04-01-2020, 02:19 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brayne Ded View Post
Very likely, but this pandemic won't do it, it will be an economic crash that does.
There's no one trigger that would do it; it's a gradual slow burn that eventually results in an eruption. But you're right in suggesting that economic turmoil could be one of those triggers. A pandemic that results in an economic collapse is likely to be a very unsettling event that will shake many people to their core, and it's the sort of thing that could intensify factions.

But even if this isn't the event, climate change is going to introduce successive waves of catastrophic trauma. I don't look at the current pandemic is necessarily the event that does it; it's rather the assessment tool that we can use to determine how we handle the inevitable triggers that will come later.

Let's just remember: The US is a country that denies climate change, just like it denied the seriousness of the COVID crisis. And when it finally reckons with reality, it's going to end up in full-on panic, and it's going to be brutally ugly. And it will cause a fracturing because rather than seeing ourselves as a "united" country; it will be in the interests of the plutocrats to divide. It will be the inevitable reaction among the peasants to say "Fuck you, I don't accept this" and that's when America's centuries old demons will be unleashed yet again.
  #96  
Old 04-01-2020, 05:00 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmonk28 View Post
Blue state America without red state America is western Europe. Red state America without blue state America is a third world shithole.
"Blue States" are 1/3 or more composed of people who support "Red State" beliefs. As I keep pointing out and you keep going into denial of, even bastions of 'Blueness' like CA and NY had more than 1/3 of voters vote for Trump. Is there something magical where 40% of the country being 'red state' is unworkable, but over 30% is? Because that's all that your split actually gets you.
  #97  
Old 04-01-2020, 06:00 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith537 View Post
I just picked it as a random country with a population roughly the size of Texas with not a whole lot of global significance. A more apt political comparison might be the Balkans, but the region is only around 55 million people.
Global significance isn't a very important issue wrt the health, wealth and happiness of a nation's citizens.

Switching gears to a point made earlier by someone else, there appears to be a growing frustration from those on the left at the country's inability to deal with 21st century problems because so much of the electorate is opposed to science and determined to uphold an anachronistic election process that prevents the progress we increasingly need.
  #98  
Old 04-01-2020, 09:34 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,474
My state of Washington is mostly red with blue polka dots, with a blue blob in the Seattle metropolitan area. I think that isn’t very different from the country as a whole.

I think the idea that the US will break up any time soon are paranoid ramblings by people with extreme political views who think many more people share their fringe beliefs. The US won’t break up because there is no clean divide to cause that; the country has no clear geographical line(s) to split from. There’s also no real incentive to split up. There are too many economic advantages to staying united. Too many people aren’t going to abandon the comforts they have.

It’s like a group of people in a house in a blizzard, and they don’t always get along, and a few of them are really bitter and expect everyone to leave the house to get away from each other. It’s too cold out for that to happen.
  #99  
Old 04-02-2020, 01:32 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
"Blue States" are 1/3 or more composed of people who support "Red State" beliefs. As I keep pointing out and you keep going into denial of, even bastions of 'Blueness' like CA and NY had more than 1/3 of voters vote for Trump. Is there something magical where 40% of the country being 'red state' is unworkable, but over 30% is? Because that's all that your split actually gets you.
I agree with your basic point, but will still offer a Nitpick. Five of the 51 "states" gave Trump less than 33.3% of the 2016 vote:
Dist_Columbia 4.1%
Hawaii 30.0%
Vermont 30.3%
California 31.6%
Massachusetts 32.8%
You can rephrase "more than 1/3 ... voted for Trump" to be "more than 1/3 of those who didn't vote for Johnson or Stein ... voted for Trump." Then, only Dist_Columbia and Hawaii would be exceptions.
  #100  
Old 04-02-2020, 04:49 AM
Brayne Ded is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 610
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
There's no one trigger that would do it; it's a gradual slow burn that eventually results in an eruption. But you're right in suggesting that economic turmoil could be one of those triggers. A pandemic that results in an economic collapse is likely to be a very unsettling event that will shake many people to their core, and it's the sort of thing that could intensify factions.

But even if this isn't the event, climate change is going to introduce successive waves of catastrophic trauma. I don't look at the current pandemic is necessarily the event that does it; it's rather the assessment tool that we can use to determine how we handle the inevitable triggers that will come later.

Let's just remember: The US is a country that denies climate change, just like it denied the seriousness of the COVID crisis. And when it finally reckons with reality, it's going to end up in full-on panic, and it's going to be brutally ugly. And it will cause a fracturing because rather than seeing ourselves as a "united" country; it will be in the interests of the plutocrats to divide. It will be the inevitable reaction among the peasants to say "Fuck you, I don't accept this" and that's when America's centuries old demons will be unleashed yet again.
Agreed, and you have also provided the best answer for MadMonk28. The pandemic is really going to mess up the economies of the world and cause a great deal of indiviidual hardship (I, for one, have no income coming in, and won't until the lockdown relaxes), but it will take another crisis on top of that, Maybe another failed war, but one that spiraled out of control and came home to roost? At any rate the pandemic will exacerbate matters.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017