For California to secede ‘amicably’, it would have to get congress to pass something discorporating it from the union - there’s no other way to secede amicably in America given its history. If this occurred then that would represent congressional republican support for the separation, and there wouldn’t be any congressional or military support for retaliation.
Also, no matter what, no significant number of people are going to be moving to states more their ‘color’ before (or during) the conflict - moving house is a big deal, and nobody’s going to do it on something as uncertain as a revolution that hasn’t occurred yet. What you’ll instead get are the equivalent of Torys - people who are aligned with the side they’re not living in, and who will raise protests and such and be unwilling to support the conflict.
On he subject of foreign support, I was talking specifically about humanitarian support for civilians that need it - there would be relatively little foreign military support for either side of the war.
Well, unless outside countries decide to start using the conflict as a proxy war. If Russia started sending troops and materiel to the Reds (out of color sympathy, let’s say) then there’s a possibility that some first world countries might provide support to the blue side to balance it.
Well, I have to say that I’m curious about how misleading news like that percolate, A quick search showed me CNN and BBC talking about that, but mostly to say that indeed, the GND or Ocasio-Cortez is NOT planning to take our meat away. They however did mention the ridiculous take Trump and others that did claim with no good basis that meat was being taken away.
So, what I think takes place is that other sourcesdo influence places like the internet, and then the ridiculous right wing take makes it into the “mainstream”, as in opinion pieces that are less part of the actual news, and on that CNN and even the BBC can run very uninformed articles. (This is me remembering many mainstream news in the past missing items when reporting about climate change issues) Also, it makes it into social media, and there you have then how an item that is not reported properly can influence others to then fall into thinking that ‘there must be something there’ but as the BBC said, one has to ask the right wing and mistake prone mainstream media: “where is the beef?”.
The posited scenario was not one wherein California legally seceded. It was in which they passed a referendum to secede, could not garner President Trump’s (and presumably not Congress’) support for a legal secession and then “California secedes, Trump declares an emergency and Oregon and Washington secede” which presumably means that they declare themselves an independent nation without the consent of the federal government.
I totally believe that meat being outlawed in the future (and all of us meat eaters being reviled as slave owners are now, or worse) is a distinct possibility. Animal rights movements are gaining ground with each year passing (for instance plenty of very ordinary people now think that there shouldn’t be animals in circuses, or dolphin shows, and even zoos are coming more and more under criticism, and of course look how popular fur is nowadays). Add to that the arguments about growing meat being a waste of ressources and also contributing to climate warming, etc…
If on top of it, we manage to produce a meat equivalent in labs, which is also a distinct possibility, all bets are off because it will become more and more difficult to justify killing animals when you could have the equivalent without harming a living creature.
So, no, maybe you have no interest in banning meat, but some are very vocal about doing exactly that, and you can’t exclude that there won’t be many more of them in the future. And presumably, they’ll be considered as leftists and progressives. And you and the other steak-eaters as heartless and immoral reactionaries.
Go ahead and check, 'lil Buckaroo, I’ll wait. You won’t find a single instance of me defending the Confederates or their cause. I’m of the opinion that Jeff Davis et. al. should have been hanged following the war. It is becoming increasingly clear that you don’t really know what the term “right wing” means or its history. It is a relative term. If we want to assign left and right to the factions in the American Civil War, it HAS to be in relation to each other. My calling you out on your ignorance does not make me a Confederate sympathizer.
I agree that in some circles, sentiment is turning against meat. But it’s something that’ll be a LONG time in coming, and I have a suspicion that it’ll be something that’s socially unacceptable long before it’s banned outright- we can probably look at smoking as a sort of index phenomenon for how this might go, except that meat eating is FAR more common today than smoking ever was.
But as far as the political viability of an outright ban? It’s not even in the same galaxy as a total smoking or tobacco ban, and nobody’s even seriously considering THAT at the moment.
Well, a couple of things. First off, I use CNN and BBC to read the news…then I form my own opinion. I’m not waiting around for some one to tell me what I should think. Second…well, did you actually click on the links? From your quick search of CNN, it says this:
So, again…it’s a question. And she was unclear. This isn’t right wing lies, it’s a woman writing a manifesto who clearly doesn’t understand reality on many of the items being unclear, exactly, what she means by what she is saying. But…if she is, indeed talking about a 10 year time frame, then this bullet point kind of HAS to mean, at a minimum, a drastic reduction in cattle ranching. Again, look at what is IN THE GND IN HER WORDS:
“working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible”
So…how much is ‘technologically feasible’? This is a broad, far ranging and very complex sector that she has boiled down to a few words. All pollution? And GhG? We aren’t JUST talking about cows here, but that is obviously a major thrust. So, basically what I’ve seen is people of various political stripes trying to interpret this based on their ideology. Ironically, YOU are doing the same fucking thing…and so are many other 'dopers. Conservative 'dopers are, again, doing the SAME FUCKING THING, just from a different viewpoint. Me? I’m on the fence…I don’t know what she meant, but figure it was almost certainly stupid and impossible. As I said in at least one of the threads on this subject, I’m good with it being just something to rile up her base and make the Republicans heads explode, but it’s not something to take seriously, or has anything serious in it. And I think, from that perspective, she probably DID mean a large reduction in Americans eating meat and a very large reduction in US cattle ranching, as well as, probably, going all organic for ‘sustainable farming’ and gods know what else.
In any case, this is drifting far away from the OP at this point so I’m going to leave it there. I put my thoughts into several of the GND threads if you want to go take a look (you were in both of them, IIRC).
Uh, no, read it again, I was pondering from **where **in the media you pointed at you got the idea that banning meat was in the NGD, reading about the cow farts the GND says that that is not feasible or to deal with it when it is. (BTW as I saw in a very early documentary that mentioned the cow’s farts, that with some diet changes for the cows or doing some engineering one can deal with that issue; ) so again, the simple request was from where on CNN or the BBC you got the bit about:
So the answer was “No, it is not part of the Green New Deal”. The point stands, and it was not really about how that 2% of the population that would want to ban meat had what it amounts to a hill of pandering beans. The point was about how the talking points from the right do percolate and since you do not want to ponder how you got the wrong impression then I will not force you. The application here in the thread was as a bit of an exploration of how propaganda can influence even centrists and show us the possible steps on how interest groups can lead Americans to blows.
Last time then I think I’ve beaten my head against the wall enough. The answer to YOU is ‘no’. To ME it’s ‘I don’t know’. To someone who might be watching Fox it’s ‘cow farts!’. As I’ve not repeatedly said, I’ve read the NGD…lots more than it really deserves…and, to ME, I don’t know exactly what she means, but I can see it either way. You, of course, are reading it through your own filters, along with, undoubtedly, reading the various things she and others have said to back-step or elucidate on her brief blurb wrt this. It’s interesting, to me, that you seem to think about propaganda only as it effects the other side (and presumably me), without apparently grasping that it affects you as well.
Anyway, with that I’m done with this. It really has little to do with the OP, which I’ve already answered in any case. I think the video I linked too pretty much gives a good view on how I think things would play out, assuming various initial conditions. Assume others and you get other outcomes. Really, the answers to the OP say more about the poster and their own partisan views or outlook than it does about the OPs question, IMHO. Unlike you, I freely admit that this includes me as well, as I’m filtering the question through my own partisan views and outlook to arrive at the assumptions and initial conditions I find most likely on how the OP would play out.
I think the details of how a war would be funded is not exactly that clear cut. While it’s true that Trump voters edged out Clinton voters in the higher income categories, they weren’t by huge margins; only 1-4 points depending on category. It is also true that two lower categories, those who favored Clinton, include the majority of Americans.
No, it is to reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses created in the creation of our foods. There may be some modifications to husbandry practices, and maybe some elimination of subsidies, but I see nothing at all in the green deal that would say “get rid of meat”.
It may end up being more expensive, and there may be less available to consumers due to increases in those prices, but it is only deliberate misunderstanding and fear mongering to say that it “get[s] rid of meat.”
You are correct that no one is stupid enough to push a ban on all meat, including the people you are accusing of pushing a ban on all meat.
I agree, as we are set up to be able to work out our differences without violence, and so it is only those who do not accept democracy as a ways of resolving out differences that would be going to war.
Very unlikely scenario. A scenario that does exist in some fringy right winger’s hopeful imaginations, but not one that actually is realistically connected tot he world in which we actually live.
By fiat means that they are entirely ignoring the constitution and all laws. In that case, it’s not a blue v red, it’s just a coup.
Now, what may happen is that some mild gun control measure is called by the right to be getting rid of the 2nd amendment, or that some law to prevent another charlottesville or worse is called doing away with the first.
they would be nothing of the sort, but I can see your point that the “red” faction may try to go to war over such delibeter mistinerptreations.
Is this something that you actually have any belief whatsoever has any chance of happening?
It’s not happening, period. May there be some tax changes that encourage fewer children? I can see that, though I would disagree, as I think we need to raise or population, not decrease it.
If there is force abortion, then I’m on the other side.
But lets look at what actually happens here, with respect to abortion. When the pro-choice element loses, they redouble their efforts at the ballot box, and they increase their efforts to help women in states that restrict their reproductive rights. There is no violence offered.
However, when the pro-choice element wins, the pro-life element refuses to recognize that result of democracy, and will threaten and intimidate people who work in clinics, as well as their patrons, as well as sometimes going to the lengths of actually assaulting or killing them.
The only way I see the pro-choice movement resorting to violence against the state would be if the states had passed legislation that preventively restricted the movements of pregnant women to prevent them form seeking an abortion out of state. Do you think the res states will go that far? I don’t, but I also do not think that the pro-choice side would institute mandatory abortions.
If there is a ban on guns (which I would recommend against, along with most on the left), the right wing fantasy of door to door confisitions is not happening. It will be a ban on sales, as well as a strong suggestion that you turn them in, along with well announced amnesty days at least semi-annually or risk a fine if you happen to be caught with one.
We have a ban on drugs, do we do door to door confiscation of them?
So, you would follow his orders whether your captain sided with the govt or the rebels?
I don’t see it as debateable, I see it as saying that the emissions from raising cows is extremely harmful to the environment, and it needs to be addressed.
Any gnashing of teeth over what it “really means” is motivated reasoning to make it mean something ridiculous against which one can rail.
If you had heard a speech by Temple Grandin say 30 years ago, and she had said that she wanted to remove as much cruelty and mistreatment from the cattle industry as “technologically feasible”, would you say that she was working toward the elimination of meat? Would you be surprised if that goal was accomplished while actually increasing the availability of meat?
[/quote]
So, some people think that it is ambiguous. She clarifies her meaning. She is called out as a liar for clarifying it in a different manner than people had already chosen to interpret it.
[quote]
No matter how well her manifesto were written, if people are motivated to take straightforward concepts and pretend to be confused about them and make up theirh owninterpretiaons abou thtem, they will do so.
There is constructive criticism, where you say something like, “That line there is a bit ambiguous, you should clarify what you mean,” and then there is disingenuous commentary, where one says, “This is what she meant by what she said, and any attempts to clarify will be met with accusations of “walking back” or outright lying.”
The former is conducive to participating in a democracy. The latter is conducive for picking fights.
Services makes up nearly $13 trillion of that, so the disparity on goods is not nearly as big as how you have presented it here.
Makes sense to end subsidies, and maybe even impose a tax. Let the meat eaters pay for their externalities.
I like meat, but I know that the $2.99 I pay for some hamburger beef is not paying for the actual cost and externalities of its production.
If lab grown meat is cheaper, then harvesting cows for meat becomes a very niche product, and is not an environmental concern anymore because of its much lower footprint. 3 star restaurants will pay dozens of dollars or more a pound for the highest quality steaks today. In the future, maybe only those highest quality steaks are produced for the wealthy, and all the cheap stuff we eat is made in a lab.
Is that dystopian to you?
And that faction will continue to be small and vocal. Oft times, the more vocal a group, the smaller it is.
Nowhere I said that it does not affects me too, so yes, I’m not unusual, and that is why I also consult science too, not just the say so of partizans out there. I end up falling for the advise a Republican and conservative scientist said when confronted by the wild exaggerations and lies that the right was saying about “An Inconvenient Truth”:
Or the right wing media and even mainstream that falls for misinformation too.
I almost feel bad about hijacking this discussion about meat…
I don’t consider this a plausible scenario. There are persons out there who feel that it would be awesome to start a civil war and get some use out of all those guns they have, but I don’t believe that California is run by such people. (Nor Oregon and Washington, for that matter.)
About the only way I could see this happening is if the entire rest of the country had gone completely to shit - something on the order of Trump declaring himself God King Emperor and the rest of Congress voting to divest themselves and the judiciary of all powers via amendment. And at that point who knows what the military would think of the state of affairs.
Which part(s) of it do you find implausible? The CalExit secessionist movement? That it would actually win approval? That OR / WA would give a shit about CA? Or are you on-board with all of that and just can’t believe the final step of “California secedes, Trump declares an emergency and Oregon and Washington secede”?
^
^
<<< BTW, that’s a serious question I’d be interested in hearing your answer to, not just rhetorical.
I fully recognize that any scenario that ends with conservatives and liberals killing each other in large numbers is highly unlikely. This one is too, but I don’t see it as any moreso than the others that have been offered.
We are at war, right now. We are in perpetual conflict and a permanent civil war. You and I have differing views on the direction of this country, and we can’t go both ways, so only one of of gets our way.
Every year, we gear up and go to battle once again. Usually some intratribal or even internecine conflict in the spring or early summer, but by fall, we are ready to draw up battle lines and go full tilt. Some years are just skirmishes over some minor territory here or there, but some years is a battle for control over not just the law of the country, but for the soul itself.
But, we do this at the ballot box, rather than in the streets. One voter goes in; one vote comes out.
And I will fight you tooth and nail, and I will advocate for and vote for representatives and policies that further my agenda, and when I lose a battle, I will redouble my efforts. Defeat does not mean loss, it just means regrouping. When you lose, you are also free to rekindle your ideals and try to get a following.
That’s the coolest thing about fighting you at the ballot box, is that we both get to live to fight another day.
FWIW, back to the thread topic, IIRC most nukes are in red states (ICBMs in the Dakotas, ballistic-missile subs in Georgia - although some are in Maine, too; B61 bombs in Missouri?) but that the permissive-action links that are meant to prevent against misuse by unauthorized entities might prevent either the red or blue factions from successfully using them against each other in a civil war.
