So what does a bipartisan "secessionist" movement look like?

I just want to sanction the crap out of CA...

a reply to: tridentblue

Here's the thing -- There isn't anything now preventing groups of people from forming their own collectives. You get together, you form a group collective and everything is owned and managed in common. It was a big fad during the hippie dippy years.

If you want to hold your health care in common, you can. If you want to own everything in common you can.

The problem with large scale, state run programs is that everyone is forced into them. I don't want to be forced into state run health care. I have a condition that doesn't typically do well in state run systems because it's a condition that requires individualized treatment, but state run systems typically take the bureaucratized, one-size-fits-all approach generally based on apparent cost effectiveness, and if that size isn't good for you, tough luck.

When I found the treatment approach that currently works for me, it was not a widely approved one at the time, meaning most state-run systems would not consider it at all. I shudder to think how many more years of my life I would have lost to chronic pain with only narcotics to attempt to treat it had I been forced into such a system.

In one breath some people talk about how much they hate all the divisiveness, and in the other they happily support it, and call for it.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I don't like being divided against my neighbors -- other folks on the street like me.

But when we talk political policy direction? There are policy objectives I want no part of for myself and my family because they are enormously destructive to us. I recognize that I have neighbors who think those policies will be wonderful for them.

At that point, the best thing for all of us would be to separate and go to places where we can each live under the policy directions we think best.

a reply to: ketsuko

Well that way the left (with China's help) can force the rest of us to finally obey their authoritarianism.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
In one breath some people talk about how much they hate all the divisiveness, and in the other they happily support it, and call for it.

Most of us do hate the division and don’t want that. If it wasn’t for the left being so hell bent to be divisive and hateful in order to get their way only, we wouldn’t be talking about saying Adios.

a reply to: tridentblue

Let me ask you an honest question: are cities doing all that well? I mean...financially? As i recall, several cities were having financial issues prior to COVID. NYC is facing a significant problem due to COVID.

Cities are in trouble. There is no benefit to living in a large city if you can't do anything in them. And even when things open up...many will still choose the newly accepted "remote workspace" world we will see in the future.

In my estimation, that problem will work itself out due to 2 main factors: large urban centers will be far emptier, with the population kind of homogenizing as time goes on. This is just a phase. The other factor will be that the under paid population will become more and more left leaning, partially from necessity (if you can't eat you will take whatever is given you so you can) and partially due to a popular unionization/power of the worker movement that is bound to happen. The ultra wealthy do not see what is coming, and they need to if they want to sustain the capitalist system in a form that resembles what we have now.

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
a reply to: putnam6

But isn't the point of starting a country the long term outlook?
I'm sure the idiots involved in CHAZ thought all was great for the first couple of days until reality set in.

Well, really we don't know who is really talking about this BS, Is there some state rep, when if that crap comes down from either side on a complete city or state there will be a whole new and different reality. I mean do you expect to have the blue cities become little Monaco's within red states magically?

Not to mention once we have these little blue fiefdoms what do they export for money, hell what do they create, New York city used to make bank off tourist dollars, that ain't happening again anytime soon if ever. That's even if we instantly went back to how it was in 2019.

If you announced right now those liberal bastion cities were seceding they would immediately lose 25% or more of their tax base or more and the population is already fleeing.

I don't know about secession, but I do know this. Small towns could live without big cities, but big cities can't live without small towns. Here's what I see. My little town here in Southern Illinois used to have around 1300 people in it during the 1940s and 1950s. During that period, we also had three hotels, a movie theater, a roller skating rink, and even a train depot. This town was jumping back then! Or so I've heard, because I hadn't been born yet. And even in the 1970s, when I moved here, they had four grocery stores, a dime store, a clothing store, an appliance store, a plumbing store, four gas stations (not convenience stores, mind you), a Western Auto, a car lot, a hardware store and two drugstores. You could find everything you needed right here in this little town. But....
Now that we're back to 1300 population in 2020, the town is dead. We have one grocery store, no gas stations, a hardware store, a Dollar General store and that's about it. You can't find what you need here and have to go somewhere else to find it. I think, however, that it wouldn't take much to bring back small towns. People here help each other and we grow a lot of food and cattle within a mile of my house. We could get back to pretty much being self-sufficient fairly easily and quickly. Can a big city say the same? No, they need the small towns for everything. Everything you need to live on. You can't eat a taxi.

So, give me this "fly-over" area over Chicago any day of the week and twice on Sundays.


TCB

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: Arizonaguy
If they are smart, they are already downsizing like crazy and getting ready to serve people in the surrounding towns. No sense running a giant business, when the incoming admin is just going to take most of the profits through taxes anyways.

I'm not going to downsize. The way this country is going, I'm taking the next offer from a corporate farming conglomerate for my Texas acreage and use that money to GTFO. We are looking at a bigly Depression in the near future.

a reply to: ketsuko

Glad you found some good treatment for your condition, that's a bright spot no matter what!

But regarding govt programs we disagree.

The thing about the left is it's based on social *contracts*. We can all share this thing if we follow these rules. Some rules are "do" statements, some are "do not" statements, which have to be backed ip with the power of law. For instance we can say we don't want to pollute, but when it's the cheapest thing and we're competing we all will. If you are young and healthy why pay for health insurance until you are old? But if you do this, these costs are concentrated on the old do it costs a fortune. Only the power of law can change this.

If we create collectives and they are successful, some corporate hitmen will soon be trying to undermine them, using legislation or fake versions or disinfo. This is how the world is. So protecting them also requires the power of law.

Yet even as we create these laws for this purpose over here, they are binding your hands to do something decent over there, in a conservative sense. So each system needs different laws.

It's no different than the idea of "platform" for computer coders. One bit of code is right on an Apple using Objective C, but wrong on windows, another in visual basic is the other way around. Neither is right or wrong, but it depends on the platform it runs on, Apple or Windows, because each has different rules, different things work. I think in computer terms, America is trying to jam to operating systems together and NOTHING is working.

a reply to: tridentblue

What's your view on the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

a reply to: DBCowboy

What I'm trying to do with this post is see if there is a way to achieve something LIKE a split country WITHIN the framework of the constitution, using states rights or something. I do this because I have to, the constitution is not up for vote so I MUST stand for it as a US citizen.

originally posted by: tridentblue
a reply to: DBCowboy

What I'm trying to do with this post is see if there is a way to achieve something LIKE a split country WITHIN the framework of the constitution, using states rights or something. I do this because I have to, the constitution is not up for vote so I MUST stand for it as a US citizen.

But you're advocating for things that are anti-Constitutional.

I wouldn't call you someone who'd adhere to the Constitution.

a reply to: DBCowboy

The left has shifted massively on states rights. Once we were the party of FDR, unifying everything in huge government programs, with only Republicans standing for state power. More and more, liberal areas want to make their own laws. They feel the "secede" feeling as well.

So what if the federal government passed off a lot of existing federal laws to states, and nullified the federal laws? Then we have a really limited president and congress with limited domains to satisfy constitution, but all the really important lawmaking is done by the red congress and leader and blue congress and leader, for their coalition of states.
It could eork.

a reply to: tridentblue

You talk of "collectives" and collective rights but never of individual rights.

a reply to: DBCowboy

None of it is unconstitutional. Both the coalitions of states have to follow bill of rights we agree on, but after that its very different. I read people on one of these sites criticizing democracy (enshrined in section 13 of the constitution) recently. That's sedition, if they act on that.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Think of the furthest left a constitutional govt can be, that's the union of blue states. The furthest right is Republican.

originally posted by: tridentblue
a reply to: DBCowboy

What I'm trying to do with this post is see if there is a way to achieve something LIKE a split country WITHIN the framework of the constitution, using states rights or something. I do this because I have to, the constitution is not up for vote so I MUST stand for it as a US citizen.

It's interesting to what if? But you might as well suggest Pelosi and Trump having an affair and joining forces. Don't think it can be done within the framework of the constitution? Hell if so the south would have done it in 1860.

Now you are talking about massive upheaval populations moving, all because Soy Sally doesn't like her next-door neighbor Red Rhonda. It's BS because it's not based on the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, you would have to rewrite them both. And I'm sorry any rewrites and reboots this generation has done have sucked to the nth degree. I'm sorry for now you have your President Jomala that's the best you can hope for, right now.

The right can go sleep on the sofa for a while and the left can sleep upstairs with a bottle of wine and call their sister and piss and moan, and they both definitely need counseling but they need to try and make it work for the children

a reply to: tridentblue

Where does the Constitution speak of collective rights?

It doesn't.

It only speaks of individual rights.