Should the US Split

originally posted by: HalWesten

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JAGStorm

I hope not.

The 'sides' should seek to work together for the good of all citizens, rather than suppressing opposing views.

... as if the country and the union actually meant something.

Democrats have been planning our extinction for seventy years, it's time to give them part of what they want. Unless of course they are willing to live under our Constitution like the rest of us happily do.

Do you think splitting up the country is compliant with your Constitution?

originally posted by: JAGStorm
It is obvious that the country is divided into two main segments and then many smaller ones from there.
Obviously Democratic values and Republican values.

Or put another way, slavery principles, or liberty principles.

I have a god idea. Since the actual fundamental principles of this nation are espoused in our Constitution, and those principles are anti-thetical to your leftist principles, why don;t ya;ll just pack up and go to one of the countries that espouse your own principles?

Why? I'll tell you why. Because they are all run by fascist dictator-wanna-be's, and when push comes to shove, you don't really, truly want the end result of sticking to your principles.

I'll just finish up with a couple of pertinent quotes:

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
- Patrick Henry

a reply to: tanstaafl

I have a god idea. Since the actual fundamental principles of this nation are espoused in our Constitution, and those principles are anti-thetical to your leftist principles, why don;t ya;ll just pack up and go to one of the countries that espouse your own principles?
Why? I'll tell you why. Because they are all run by fascist dictator-wanna-be's, and when push comes to shove, you don't really, truly want the end result of sticking to your principles.

Both sides are always over dramatic. I heard it during the Obama years "I'll move to Canada", I heard it during Trump years, "I'll move to Canada"... Apparently, nobody is moving, and they don't need to.

The US is big, and in a way we kind of are already separated by politics, more so in some places. Alabama is Red and California is blue. Some states like Wisconsin are both, that's where it would be tricky.

No. It’s time to relearn healthy debate and that different opinions and ideas are healthy.
Embrace our history, the bad and the good.
Quit trying to re-write it.
There are winners and losers.
Not everyone gets a trophy.
Work for a living. Stop making excuses.
Care about your neighbor.
Help your community.
Be humble.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Need a rally cry...how about:

The Election Was Stolen By The Democrats Just Like The Second Set Of $1200 Stimulus Checks.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JAGStorm

I hope not.

The 'sides' should seek to work together for the good of all citizens, rather than suppressing opposing views.

... as if the country and the union actually meant something.

If America meant so much to the left, then why do they need to "Fundamentally Transform" it?

Because there are still things wrong with it; with its legal system, with its abuses of power, abuses of human rights. With the unfairness that the very wealthy control the means of capital acquisition, and squeeze out those with less.

A poor entrepreneur with a great idea shouldn't risk having his idea/s taken off him by wealthy and lawyered-up corporations, for instance. Or criminals walk free because they can afford a team of wealthy legal representatives to argue or indefinitely defer their case (the election was stolen! - how much do you think that is going to cost you the taxpayer?).

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; power is ever stealing from the many to the few. The manna of popular liberty must be gathered each day or it is rotten. The living sap of today outgrows the dead rind of yesterday. The hand entrusted with power becomes, either from human depravity or esprit de corps, the necessary enemy of the people.” - Wendell Phillips.

You aren't going to get any peace by trying to rid yourselves of those who currently dissent against the powers that be.

America should not negotiate with terrorists.

Didn't Reagan negotiate with Hezbollah to secure hostages?
Didn't Obama negotiate with the Taliban to secure the release of military captives?
Didn't Trump negotiate with Kim Jong Un?

The US clearly negotiates with terrorists, as do most governments who suggest that is their guiding principle. It's tough-sounding words, but it's all just words when it comes down to it.

The left, by their own actions the last 4 years at least, have ended up fitting that definition.

No, they haven't.

That has been the propaganda of the right. It isn't necessarily true.

I could point out all the ultra-right-wing groups that have been convicted of acts of violence and terrorism while the right-wing press has been notably silent.

And what did Trump say when an ultra-right-wing agitator drove his car into a crowd of peaceful protestors, killing one, at Charlottesville? He said, "But we're closely following the terrible events unfolding in Charlottesville, Va., We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides, on many sides." But the truth is, that particular "hatred, bigotry, and violence" was one-sided, he just didn't want to upset his 'base'.

So no... there will be no "working together."

We learned what that actually means to the left a long time ago.

Think like us or we will beat you, burn down your business, cancel you, doxx you.

Just shut up and obey.

That's just not going to work...

Bu it is going to be fun watching them try and fail rather miserably.

America is not New Zealand.

So I understand why you don't understand.

The USA has had alternating Republican and Democrat governments for 166 years. And you think that the Democratic Party is now going to suddenly destroy the country? Total paranoid fantasy.

Most people don't believe that. It's a lie to prop up a poorly justified leader for a single term of office, where he didn't, or couldn't, come up with the goods.

Look at the results of your elections.

Even if you use the excuse that there was some electoral fraud, do you really think millions of people were part of such an illegal operation (Biden got about 6 million votes more than Trump)? Even if half of them were fake, that's still an enormous number and would have to be done by large numbers of people. And if Trump was ahead, as he has claimed, that makes the numbers required even larger and harder to explain.

Face it, he's a loser.

a reply to: chr0naut

Before lincoln rewrote the 10th amendment and illegally passed it it was.

a reply to: JAGStorm

I think we're going to have to yank our fingers out of our ears and consider it, at minimum. To dumb it down for folks, rejecting the possibility under any circumstances is akin to demanding mom and dad never divorce even if they clearly hate each other, beat each other, and try to harm each other. That's NOT healthy for a family, so why would it be for a populace? It's not that different, spouses change over time, some grow so far apart that nothing can be salvaged. The same came be applied to civilian populations. Some ex-spouses are able to reach amicable & mutually beneficial splits and bury their hatchets. This has worked for many countries over time, too.

IMO, if we swallow the bitter pill and acknowledge we might be too far gone for proverbial marriage counseling to do anything useful, we might then be able to work on that divorce, and work on a beneficial outcome we can be happier with than sitting through a dead relationship of hatred.


Edit: I kind of left that hanging without end result clarity, sorry. I see the US most likely splintering into territories like PR, American Samoa, Guam -- under the same federal-ish government, but maybe somewhat more autonomous than those currently are.

Yo, WTH, edit button quotes stuff? There's a new glitch.

a reply to: Nyiah

IMO, if we swallow the bitter pill and acknowledge we might be too far gone for proverbial marriage counseling to do anything useful, we might then be able to work on that divorce, and work on a beneficial outcome we can be happier with than sitting through a dead relationship of hatred.

Yes, this is what I'm talking about!

a reply to: JAGStorm

This solution would destroy the country.

You can't divide a country without making it a target for our enemies.

I interact with people everyday, and I have no idea what their ideology, or what party they belong to or support. Yet, we successfully manage to engage.

This new idea that only like minded people are to be tolerated, and all those opposing, should be eliminated, is an example of how the internet and social media can grow hateful and dangerous cult mentalities.

We are Americans. We can disagree, we can compromise, we have done it for centuries. The internet is a tool, used by those that mean us the most harm, to manipulate and control us. We know that, but we fall for it anyway.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn
We cannot compromise anymore though. The left changed compromising to mean obedience and subservience. It's been sliding that way for a while. Every time the conservatives "compromise" it just means more of the constitution has been ripped away.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
We are having a small Thanksgiving without any drama this year.
So no politics or opinions from relatives. Why not stir some up on ATS?

I asked a similar question a few years back and almost everyone thought the US should stay together.


I wonder how people feel about that now. I think Trumps presidency has forever divided this nation.
Not saying he did it, I believe it was always there, but his presidency brought it to the surface. That
isn't necessarily a bad thing.

It is obvious that the country is divided into two main segments and then many smaller ones from there.
Obviously Democratic values and Republican values.
It appears these values are just not compatible with each other.

How would that look on a US map. To me it would seem like both coasts would be liberal, while most of the Midwest and South would be
conservative, with some exception. I have no clue how this would be executed but I'm just thinking about it at a higher level...

Is it unpatriotic to think like this? When two people are very unhappy, why stay married. I've seen many people get divorced and live much happier lives. Yes normally people should try to work together, but I really think in the US we are pretty much past that point. I also know a lot of people that didn't get divorced, and let me tell you, they probably should have.

I think the two opposing belief systems are just not compatible anymore. I've seen it in my own state. I've seen it on a national level, maybe it is time we try something else.

Yes. I would split/cut the population horizontally at about 2-3 feet high above their feet.

Short answer is NO. There are many good people in every state. I think we should split from the mainstream media.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: chr0naut

Before lincoln rewrote the 10th amendment and illegally passed it it was.

Roger Sherman drafted the 10th Amendment pursuant to Thomas Tudor and Elbridge Gerry's proposals which gave rights not defined explicitly in the Constitution, to the states.

It is at the core of Federalism that states are to retain rights outside the specific remit of 'the Federal' as defined in the Constitution.

As James Madison wrote in The Federalist No. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce" and "The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state."

Although Madison did oppose the amendment, it was not up to any single person to decide.

Both Houses of Congress ratified the 10th after it was presented by Madison at the first United States Congress in 1789.

Lincoln did not rewrite the 10th Amendment. He was opposed to secession from Union (as it weakened the whole), but this Amendment does not speak to that at all.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: HalWesten

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JAGStorm

I hope not.

The 'sides' should seek to work together for the good of all citizens, rather than suppressing opposing views.

... as if the country and the union actually meant something.

Democrats have been planning our extinction for seventy years, it's time to give them part of what they want. Unless of course they are willing to live under our Constitution like the rest of us happily do.

Do you think splitting up the country is compliant with your Constitution?

Technically, only one state -- Vermont -- has the legal right to leave the Union. This is because it was for a short time an independent nation, and it joined the union on the condition that it would forever retain the right to leave. Not many people know this.

This, of course, would never happen or be allowed to happen in real life. But the law has been such since the 1700s.

Flag of the short-lived Vermont Republic:

a reply to: chr0naut

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

There is a VERY IMPORTANT phrase in there...”or to the people.” Meaning that the people retain rights that neither the Federal nor State have. The Tenth is in some ways even more powerful than the Second. And the Second allows for an overthrow of the government if need be.

a reply to: TKDRL

If that is how you see it, the only advice I can give you is to learn Chinese. Knowing a bit of Russian may help as well, but either way, what you will be looking at will not be America, and all hope for compromise will be out the window, regardless of which language you try to speak to them in.

originally posted by: Never Despise

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: HalWesten

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JAGStorm

I hope not.

The 'sides' should seek to work together for the good of all citizens, rather than suppressing opposing views.

... as if the country and the union actually meant something.

Democrats have been planning our extinction for seventy years, it's time to give them part of what they want. Unless of course they are willing to live under our Constitution like the rest of us happily do.

Do you think splitting up the country is compliant with your Constitution?

Technically, only one state -- Vermont -- has the legal right to leave the Union. This is because it was for a short time an independent nation, and it joined the union on the condition that it would forever retain the right to leave. Not many people know this.

This, of course, would never happen or be allowed to happen in real life. But the law has been such since the 1700s.

Flag of the short-lived Vermont Republic:

The US Constitution was about forming a Union and how to make that workable.

For it to document how to destroy the Union, and the reason for the Constitution in the first place, would be irrational and counterproductive.

I knew there were secessionists in Vermont, but I was unaware that it had different legal status than the other states.

I looked up the Vermont Republic in Wikipedia. Here's a link for those interested.

a reply to: chr0naut

Yeah, Vermont is a nice place to visit. Here in the White Mountains of New Hampshire, we think of it as the hippie storage bin for those who can't hack it as a straight hillbilly.

Love from Vermont's more sensible next-door neighbor: