I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone so efficiently discredit themselves and annihilate their own argumentative position than Arizona Mike’s continued assertions that the Democrats of the civil war era have anything at all to do with the modern democratic party. I have a difficult time believing that any intelligent and sane person of either political party would accept that as valid or persuasive argument.
It’s shit like this that makes it hard for me to remember that being of the conservative bent doesn’t automatically invalidate you from intelligent discussion.
Its Orwellian, because the issue isn’t democrat or republican, it is southern whites. Whatever party southern whites identify with and feel comfortable with is the party that his hostile to minority rights. From 1860-1960 or so, southern whites were democrats and the democrats were the party hostile to minorities. Then southern whites became republicans after FDR, Truman, Kennedy & LBJ pushed for minority rigths, now the republican party is hostile to minority rights.
Its Orwellian that the party of southern whites (the modern republicans) is now trying to denounce the democratic party because 100 years ago, southern whites were democrats.
It’d be like if I was on Team A several years ago, now am in Team B, and denounced Team A as evil because it used to have people like myself in it years ago.
Secession might be nice, but for all the rhetoric, we aren’t anywhere near that point. If secession took place at 100 political degrees, the water’s not even at 20 degrees yet.
Thanks! It’s always nicer when people can get along. Now just do me a big fat favor and don’t employ argumentative strategies that make you look absurd, and maybe we can have a fun discussion.
If they are including Social Security, then red states that attract retirees are effectively penalized in the rankings.
Federal employees per resident penalizes places that have military bases.
Federal employees per resident, absent military, includes others that certain states would happily get rid of. For example, Utah would happily get rid of the feds who run Bear Ears and just let Utah manage the land themselves. That attitude is rather pervasive in the Western States.
The ranking of federal funding “as a share of state revenue” also penalizes states with smaller budgets (typically red states). For example, Utah spends ~$4500 per resident. Oregon spends ~$9000 per resident. If both states get ~27.8% of their budget from the Feds, the Oregonians are getting ~$2500 per resident from the Feds while Utahns are getting ~$1250 from the Feds. According to Wallet Hub, both states are about equally dependent on the Feds (for this one metric) based on the ~27.8%, but I’d call the Oregonians twice as leech-y, based on the $2500 vs $1250.
ETA: the numbers for this post came from BallotPedia
What you do or don’t consider absurd, and whether you want to participate, matters less than my sister’s black cat’s ass. Participate in the conversation civilly, don’t try to be insulting or condescending, or take your ball and go home.
On the issue of the OP’s original fantasy (which, now that I think of it, could be the backstory for the Escape From New York / Escape From L.A. series - Both seceded, and either they collapsed economically and socially or the United States reduced the insurrectionists to rubble, and they were made prison colonies. Could happen.
Whether that is likely, is a whole 'nother issue. Some possible problems:
It’s illegal, under Texas v. White. CaliYork could claim an inherent right to revolution, though. Whether they could convince enough citizens that their grievances (which basically amount to the fact that some residents don’t like Trump) would be sufficient to cast off the rights and protections of U.S. citizenship for an uncertain new form of revolutionary government. CaliYork COULD secede with the consent of the other states. While that would be tempting in some ways - it would guarantee a Republican majority in the U.S., and without California, President Trump would have won the popular vote by 1.5 million - it’s unlikely. The political will isn’t there on either side.
The President could simply federalize the California and New York National Guards and Air Guards. He does not need the consent of the governor to do this. If the President were to declare a state of war with SnowFlakeistan, failure to follow lawful orders would leave the soldiers subject to execution under the UCMJ. You may be willing to have others die for your cause, but it would give most soldiers pause. It would also be in violation of their oath of allegiance to the United States, which National Guardsmen, military reservists, and federal employees take. Many veterans still consider themselves bound by their oath to protect the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, which is not rescinded when you ETS. Many would take up arms to bring down the SnowFlakeistan government. SnowFlakeistan Secretary of Defense Meryl Streep would have her hands full with partisan warfare, led by people who have actually fired weapons and not had them handed to them by a propmaster on the set.
As a side-note, the President would not have to treat captured belligerents under constitutional protections, nor the Geneva Convention (which specifically excludes civil wars). Things could get ugly.
Even a referendum attempt at a Calexit would require half of all voters to show up at the polls, and 55% to vote to secede. Good luck with that, for the other reasons stated.
The largest group supporting a Calexit, “Yes California”, is apparently funded by the Russian government. Nuff said.
The largest concentration of military power in California, such as Camp Pendleton and Vandenburg AFB are on federal land. One could entertain fantasies of antifa militia seizing them, but I assure you, they are well equipped to defend themselves. They could also remain enclaves of the American government on a Californicacia mainland, as we do with Guantanamo Bay.
A plus for Calexit: it would become a beacon for progressives to emigrate to, as well create a large and welcoming work environment for unskilled labor, which would take reduce the impact of ass-backward social policies on other states and increase employment in America.
California needs other states’ water for agriculture, but could refuse to provide food (assuming the secessionists survived the first military engagement) But they also need natural gas from other states and a wide variety of natural resources. Of course, if they refuse to export produce, that means revenues drop quickly for farmers…who will not be happy that a bunch of blue-haired art students are calling the shots on their livelihoods. Farmers can get pretty nasty when riled.
Disneyland: out of business due to lack of tourist revenues and the perception by Americans that vacationing in Calistan is unpatriotic. Ditto Hearst Castle, and much of San Francisco.
If the U.S. chooses to shut the secessionists down, it has some pretty powerful weapons aside from carpet bombing Oakland. (For one thing, it would be hard to tell the difference in Oakland). Expect Special Forces teams to train and raise partisan forces to sabotage or seize key points.
As Machiavelli said, wars may begin where you choose but they don’t always end where you want. If secession takes place in, say, Calistan, what is to stop a succession of further fragmentation? What happens when the Mexican nationals who have moved into East L.A. declare a new republic of Aztlan? What happens when Silicon Valley splits into its own tiny nation? What happens when the Crips and Bloods declare their own rival empires and demand diplomatic recognition from Calistan? What happens when the farm owners decide their needs are being ignored by Calistan President Jerry Brown and declare Radicchiopolis, a sovereign bread-basket nation?
California is a lovely place to live. I know, I lived there for 11 years. But it also one of the most disaster-prone areas of the country, and is routinely bailed out financially by the United States. When the tectonic plates move and render most of L.A. uninhabitable, when a tsunami strikes and wipes out Malibu (and their two coastal nuclear power plants), when the fire storms rip through the wealthy areas north of L.A. - how will they cover their losses?
California just can’t afford the cost of being a self-sustaining government. Their state pension liability alone is about 500 billion dollars. Gang violence and street crime show no sign of abating. How car will Californians (who are having a pearl-clutching attack at the prospect of the loss of deduction of their sky-high state taxes react to an inevitably sky-rocketing income tax to support Calistan.
not that I want to rehash the whole “Yes California!” or “#calexit” thing, but the major problem they would have is that California- like the rest of the states- is not uniformly blue. all that agriculture they love to brag makes them so important is grown in a lot of “red” areas. If California was to successfully secede, there’s nothing to hold it together. The “red” areas could elect to split off themselves, or remain part of the US.
“[W]hen the band of Union gets once broken, every thing ruinous to our future prospects is to be apprehended; the best that can come of it, in my humble opinion, is that we shall sink into obscurity, unless our civil broils should keep us in remembrance and fill the page of history with the direful consequences of them.” - George Washington, letter to Rev. William Gordon, July 1783
“To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliances however strict between the parts can be an adequate substitute. They must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced…[the Federal government] has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty…the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.” - George Washington, Farewell Address, September 1796
Perhaps the question to ask is why OP, although he is not a citizen of the U.S., feels the Constitution, as it currently exists, is not the best operating manual for the United States, and what he would want to change about it for the notional new country he wants to create?
We gradually have been recovering from the Civil War – the country has never been as split down the middle as it literally was back in the mid-1800s. I think we can recover from this as well. A backlash to Trumpism (because I hesitate to call it conservatism) is on the rise. And hopefully people on both sides of the aisle, who’ve had enough with the current state of affairs, will speak up for a return to real democracy.
They would be considered to be in a state of insurrection, and under martial law, constitutional protections (such as the right of habeas corpus) can be suspended - as Abe Lincoln showed. See Article I, Section 9, which states that Habeas Corpus can be suspended in the event of rebellion. Although martial law is not mentioned in the Constitution, reasoning from this other constitutional protections would be suspended - assuming that the rebels are still considered U.S. citizens in revolt.
There are very minimal protection the Geneva Conventions (there were actually 4 conventions) provide for those in a civil war, which they define as “armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties”. Article 3 only protects those who are non-combatants, i.e. humane treatment of persons taking no active part in the hostilities and provision of care to the wounded and sick. They expanded it out a bit in the Additional Protocol II of 1977, which still has not been ratified by every nation, but the protections POWs enjoy - or are supposed to enjoy - are not in there. (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/INTRO/475?OpenDocument). The U.S. could use dum-dum bullets, triangular bayonets, etc.
If the #Resist movement is childish and should go away, I wonder if any of those people regret their childish anti-Obama behavior?
Likely they don’t even see any equivalence.
But then, for most of these people, being anti-Obama was being “patriotic”, while being anti-(insert Republican President here) is TREASON. With absolutely no awareness of the cognitive dissonance involved in that sort of thing.
