At what point did I say otherwise? The OP stated that the US will be under virtuallly permanent Republican control, and that the remedy to that is State succession. I say that is nonsense, and gave my reason why. One of which was Hillary Clinton, who (hopefully) will play no factor in the 2020 elections. I’m a bit doubtful that democrats will win back control of congress this year, but I do think they will be in considerably better shape. I am very optimistic that if the DNC gets their s__t together and comes up with a better candidate and better messaging for working whites, that they have a good chance winning the presidency in 2020. To suggest secession is even close to necessary at this point is absurd, and the idea of inevitable civil war even more absurd. The DNC just needs to do better, and they can do better. It’s not like Trump won the surprise states in a landslide. He actually did worse than Romney in some of them.
Please see post #107.
At least in the case of Utah, that’s false.
Ok, I agree with all of this. I’d already said the whole thing was a stupid idea and that the various state secession movements that sprang up recently were all created and pushed by Russian Intelligence services.
There seems to be this odd opinion that just because a dude likes the color red and owns a pile of guns that they’re invulnerable superheroes. I’m aware that that’s the delusion that IRA likes to peddle, but it’s pretty clearly not true - if California managed to somehow secede without the US government rolling its eyes and crushing them like a bug, and if the newly formed country decided that liberalism and ‘annihilating your enemies in a storm of gunfire’ aren’t contradictory from a political or propaganda perspective, then the gun hoarders could be quite easily slaughtered. Owning more guns than you can shoot at once doesn’t make you yourself bulletproof.
I mean, yes, sure, modern american liberalism doesn’t tend to approach political debates by shooting first and putting flowers in the barrel later. But that doesn’t change the fact that the fetishistic idea that every conservative with a gun is Rambo and can and will get the chance to murder with impunity is childish bullshit.
(And the fact that the military has guns is utterly irrelevant in the case of a legal secession - unless the idea is that members of the military will go AWOL and take military equipment on personal vigilante murder sprees or something.)
A lot of the people that believe Hillary stole the nomination did not vote at all. And a lot of people that voted for Obama last time did not vote at all. They need to be won back, and disaffected working whites need to be won back. It can be done.
Doesn’t do you any good if you can’t afford them.
I’m pretty confident nobody claimed they were “invulnerable superheroes” “Rambo” or “bulletproof”. Strawman much?
Citizens are not “heavily armed” as compared to a modern military. The notion that the good ol’ boys of Mississippi are uniquely prepared to resist an occupying government is just silly.
That’s interesting but quite a bit shy of your claim that “the President would not have to treat captured belligerents under constitutional protections.” I sincerely doubt Articel I, Section 9 would be seen by the courts as allowing, shall we say, cruel and unusual punishment upon prisoners of war.
Well, of course that section covers persons who are hors de combat. That’s the point of the Geneva Conventions. Prisoners of war are by definition not combatants, and the Geneva Conventions don’t protect combatants. Their entire purpose is to state how you treat non-combatants.
You’re confusing your conventions, too. The Geneva Conventions don’t prohibit dum-dum bullets, for instance; those are prohibited by the Hague Convention. It is a common, but wholly mistaken belief, that the Geneva Conventions are some sort of grab-bag of all the laws of war. They’re not.
I don’t think you grasped the point of what you were reading, dude. If Canada abolished the law against infanticide, the result is that the same act would be classified as first or second degree murder. In other words, getting rid of an infanticide law INCREASES the severity of punishment against a mother who kills an infant. This is rather clearly explained in your own cite.
Oh, that is exactly what some people claim will happen. They see the military breaking off into factions, mass defections, etc. I kind of doubt that this is true, but it is what some extreme conservatives think. Who knows?
Calling another poster a “nazi-lover” is a violation of TOS:
"You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use the SDMB to post any material that you know or should know is false and/or defamatory,** inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful**, harassing, obscene, profane, threatening, invasive of a person’s privacy, or in violation of U.S. law.
I expect a retraction.
That silly red state blue state “welfare” meme doesn’t delve into specifics. If you think red America doesn’t have productivity (real and potential) and vast wealth you are misinformed. Do you really think a modern civil war would go well for the left?
The position presented is that armed civilians would be able to successfully prevent the actions of a theorized freewheeling government that has already clearly demonstrated the will to burn massive numbers of bridges to get what it wants.
I assumed that by specifying that armed citizens were doing this, the idea was that these gun-toters would be out there playing action hero, using their guns and super-not-dying skills to defeat the evil liberal government and its evil liberal armed police forces in sustained combat as per the standard conservative fantasy/IRA sales pitch. If the idea was instead that the armed citizens would sell those guns to raise money for peaceful lobbying efforts, then I stand corrected.
That sentence refers to President Trump.
I don’t think a modern civil war would go well for anybody. Do you?
I don’t think you have been following the various legal arguments on this issue. Those who want to decriminalize infanticide are arguing that women who kill their own babies at birth are acting out of diminished capacity and should no more be held to trial than a woman who got an abortion.
Legal secession? Lol.
And the military being composed of people with ideas and guns makes the whole idea of secession laughable. That clown thread of Calexit should have dispelled any notion that splinteringnof the Union wouldn’t go according to plan.
Really, do you think that Utah could manage the lands better on the state’s budget?
There may be some choice areas that the BLM has protected that are now worth taking for their value, but do you really want all 23 million acres that currently the federal government is taking care of for your state, or do you want to just pick and choose the choicey bits?
If you had to choose, would you take all BLM land in Utah and make it the state’s responsibility, or would you leave BLM in charge of the vast tracts of land that is poorly suited for farming, grazing, or living on?
Personally, as much as I see that I benefit from BLM, I’d rather just save the billion dollars and let the states have their land.
Well, there are a few possible plans that they could be trying to go according to.
Any plan that involves any state government just flipping double birds at the US and declaring themselves independent will be crushed in days by federal marshals. Or in hours by the military if they decide their version of secession includes seizing federal military assets. Note that this doesn’t require the military people to have “ideas” - the US government will straight-up order them to get in there and kick ass.
For us (well, me) to pretend that this whole thread isn’t a complete delusional pile of idiocy, we have to theorize that the state somehow convinced the federal government to allow it to leave with its new government intact. Which is to say, legal succession. In this case the US would have ordered its military to withdraw from the new country’s grounds, presumably with every speck of their materiel on their backs and a big fat payment for the formerly-federal land in their pockets, and any soldiers who turned around and started blowing away the locals would be brought up on charges by the US.
So yeah, you can say “Legal secession? Lol.”, but you’re really saying “This entire discussion? Lol.” Any attempt at secession without tacit federal support would be annihilated. This ain’t 1861, when it took more than twenty minutes to strike any target on the continent.
Why do you keep wanting a war? Is that the only way that you can see to solve any differences of opinion, violence?
I see other ways of resolving our differences, but as long as it is only the left that sees non-violent ways of doing so, then violence may end up being in the cards. If the right keeps making these threats like yours that if they don’t get their way, they will start a civil war, well,that’s not going to go well for anyone, left or right. It is only in your fantasies that your violent partisan allies manage to perform their coup with little or no casualties, the real world is a bit trickier.
Do you know where wealth is generated? It is generated in cities. you know where productivity is produced? In cities. If the far right decides to try to perform a coup by taking out the cities, where do you think that is really going to leave them?
OTOH, if the left were to just stop propping up the horribly inefficient and non viable business that is the family farm, a large portion of the right would go bankrupt and have to sell their land to more efficient corporations. The people in the city wouldn’t notice a thing.
Every bit of life and lifestyle of the ruralite is subsidized by the wealth and productivity of the urban centers. Without them, the rural areas would be barely above subsistence farming trying to scrape a living out of the dirt.
You don’t have to be grateful for what urban america does to support rural america, but you do need to realize that any harm to cities is going to hurt rural america far far more.