-
America's 2nd Civil War
I read a pretty good article the other day about the pending second civil war in the United States. Actually it was an excerpt from a new book coming out. But it made the case for dividing up the country into two countries essentially because the author felt that's what it has become and our differences have become so polarized that there's no going back. He said that it could be a bloodless break up. For years I've been saying we should just draw a line down the middle of the country and make one side, probably the right side, conservative America - CUSA and the left side liberal America - LUSA (of course everyone would refer to that side as loser but so be it). You could choose what side you want to live on and be a citizen of at the beginning but that's it once you've signed on that's the country you're a citizen of. The conservative side could be a capitalistic system while the liberal side could be total socialism.
Which side would you like to live on?
N..
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
I think it's this kind of "us vs. them" thinking that divides us even more, N. I think it's also too black and white, all or nothing, thinking that assumes everyone can just fit into a box, right or left, liberal or conservative.
I honestly think both countries would fail. Pure capitalism doesn't work. Pure socialism doesn't work. You need a capitalist system tempered with some socialist policies to be successful...if you look at most industrialized countries today.
You and I are about as different as night and day when it comes to politics N, but we get a long on this forum. We enjoy ribbing each other and joking about other things. You truly don't believe you and I can live together as Americans in the same country anymore?
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
Here's an excerpt from the book - see below. Personally I think if there is secession that it's going to come from the right because we're just tired of being bothered. by nature conservatives just want to go about their business and do their thing where progressives are never satisfied...simply based on the term progressive. I was listening to a guy on the radio talk the other day and he said the next civil war is going to come from the south again only this time they are going to win. they're not going to allow a few liberal states in the Northeast and on the west coast dictate how they are going to live.
Excerpt:
Secession movement might find fertile ground in today’s political climate.
Secession. It’s a crazy idea, right? But it’s less crazy than you might think. With all the secessionist movements across the world, it becomes easier to imagine breakups, even in the United States. It’s easier still when the pluses are so much greater than they were in the past, and the minuses so much smaller.
The pluses are so much greater today because the federal government’s footprint has grown so much larger. In the past, the states had less reason to chafe at the rule from Washington. A spring in the back yard didn’t become a federal wetland. Teachers didn’t receive letters from the Department of Education telling them how to run their schools. Local highway decisions weren’t made in Washington because of the strings attached to federal grants. Now America increasingly looks more like a unitary state than like the federal republic the Framers of the Constitution thought they had given us. With secession, we would reverse course.
If there’s more reason for a state to secede today, there’s also a much smaller downside. It wouldn’t perpetuate slavery in the South, as secession in 1861 would have done. Even after the Civil War had brought an end to slavery, federalism and “states’ rights” were discredited by southern Jim Crow laws and barriers to voting registration for black Americans. Since then, however, the civil rights revolution has taken hold and it’s much less likely that secession would be employed to discriminate against a minority. Even notorious racists such as Senator Jim Eastland (D-MS) understood how the 1965 Voting Rights Act and federal marshals had changed the equation. “When [the blacks] get the vote,” he said, “I won’t be talking this way anymore.” Far from bringing back Jim Crow, secession today in a place like California might give us the perfect paradise of woke progressivism.
Instead of the Civil War, think of the “velvet divorce” of the Czechs and Slovaks in 1993. Distinct in religion, language and culture, they had been combined in a country created in 1918 after the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The Slovaks were conservative and agricultural while the Czechs liked avant-garde plays and rock music. Czechoslovakia suffered through Nazi and Soviet rule, and then split apart into Slovakia and the Czech Republic upon the fall of communism. The two new countries, both Western and liberal, solved questions about their border, the division of assets and assumption of public debt through negotiation, and they’ve since maintained the friendliest of relations.
We’re now living in a secessionist moment in world history, as a result of three international developments. The first was the decolonization movement., which gave birth to new countries in Africa and Asia as European countries shrank. Like the American Revolution, the grant of independence was a form of secession from the colonial power. The second development was the end of the Cold War. When countries had faced the threat of Communist expansion, they did not wish to weaken themselves by dividing in two countries, or weren’t given that option. South Vietnam wasn’t permitted to remain independent of North Vietnam, for example. But after the Communist empire fell, twenty-four new countries emerged from behind the Iron Curtain. The third development was the worldwide embrace of free trade. When countries subjected foreign goods to high tariffs but let domestic goods pass freely, small size meant greater barriers to trade, and that was a cost. If a seceding state could enter into a free trade zone with the one it was splitting away from, and accede to its free-trade treaties, that cost would disappear.
All this points to a rise in American secessionism. To American states that chafe at rule from Washington, the federal government can seem like a distant and burdensome colonial power. That was the point of the Tea Party movement, after all. “Party like it’s 1773!” said Sarah Palin, recalling the first Tea Party. The fall of communism has also lessened the need for the powerful military that only a large state can provide. Finally, a seceding state might hope to retain free-trade links with the rest of the United States, as Quebec separatists had sought with their idea of sovereignty-association. (RELATED: Texit? Meet The Folks Making The Push For The Second Biggest State In The US To Secede)
In short, the stakes have been lowered, and that’s why a modern president might react to a secession referendum with more of James Buchanan’s prudence and less of Abraham Lincoln’s unyielding assertion of federal sovereignty. Secession might also seem like a reasonable way to resolve unbridgeable partisan differences, in which case an Article V convention to amend the Constitution might work out our own velvet divorce. Finally, the right of secession might find support in the Supreme Court, were it to follow the decision of the Canadian Supreme Court when it was faced with the possibility of a successful independence referendum in Quebec.
Cass Sunstein has said that “no serious scholar or politician now argues that a right to secede exists under American constitutional law.” He’s right. But I will show how it could still happen through constitutional means.
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AntsyVee
I think it's this kind of "us vs. them" thinking that divides us even more, N. I think it's also too black and white, all or nothing, thinking that assumes everyone can just fit into a box, right or left, liberal or conservative.
I honestly think both countries would fail. Pure capitalism doesn't work. Pure socialism doesn't work. You need a capitalist system tempered with some socialist policies to be successful...if you look at most industrialized countries today.
You and I are about as different as night and day when it comes to politics N, but we get a long on this forum. We enjoy ribbing each other and joking about other things. You truly don't believe you and I can live together as Americans in the same country anymore?
Agreed. And what is pure? How many on the left and right don't agreed with others on their side? There are those to the fringes who would still cause friction because their views are much harder. The more moderate of each side would still have to deal with them.
Take our Labour party as an example. The hard left have spent the last few years in a bitter fight for control that has seen them lurch further left causing traditional working class voters to cease voting for them. The party thought having the most members in Europe was brilliant but they forget 500k is tiny in our country. They got trounced and now it's still kicking off as the factions fight dirty over the new leader who isn't as far to the left.
Similar examples can be found in the Tory party.
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
I've thought about this based on the deep divide in our country. IMO, we've become too comfortable and complacent in our lives to actually take up arms and fight each other. As far as dividing the country? Again, the reality is it won't happen.
Will there be incidents? No doubt and they'll be ugly like they were in Charlottesville when that right wing maniac drove his car into the crowd, killed one and injured several. There are right wing militia groups that would have no problem pulling the triggers of their AR15s. Will left wing protesters beat the poo out of a group of a pro-life group? Probably. Yeah, IMO, its going to get a lot uglier moving forward from both sides.
Will it result in an armed conflict or division of the states? Nope. Lets be honest... If you are conservative and live in a blue state, are you going to pack up your life and move to live in a like minded red state? Visa Versa applies. Would you seriously consider arming yourself and joining a militia to fight the opposition? OR... is posting on social media from the comfort of your easy chair enjoying a cold one more your speed? Our society has changed. I don't believe we'll ever see the types of protests we've seen in our past or other countries around the world. Sure, there will be protests. Sure, people will gather carrying signs. There will be incidents of violence. But a full blown war? Nahhhh... we're too freaking lazy to be honest.
Positive thoughts
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
So what you're saying is the 'greatest country on earth' needs to sulk and not talk to itself any more because it can't get along?
No.
And of course it won't result in armed conflict. The mouthy ones that stockpiled all the guns have done precisely nothing in the face of the exact thing they were arming themselves for.
Fishmanpaa is spot on. Too comfortable and lazy to actually do anything. In the meantime, the ones that are causing the issue are the ones allowing themselves to become divided by various media outlets. You actually put all these people in a room together and good old fashioned human instinct comes in and they start getting along.
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
No way the current federal government would let that happen, no matter who is President. That's a conservative Southern good ol' boy pipe dream. And if people did try that in any state, they would end up like Ruby Ridge or Waco, Texas. The same type of people who had the same type of thinking and look what happened to them.
But it doesn't matter now, because this virus is going to change a lot of things that will probably bury such political radical notions. Because this virus has got us by the balls right now. It's like an outside invading force coming into the country and successfully reducing our numbers on each politically divided side. So it demands our attention, one way or another, whether we all disagree or agree politically.
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
Who said anything about armed conflict (not that I think for one second that that couldn't happen)? But did you read the piece?
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
Do you think that at one time, and not that long ago, anyone thought the USSR would be no more?
I find it amusing that it's the lefties who generally don't want the split. Of course they do like to run things by fiat... BTW that's not a car for you libs.
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PanickyGuy
No way the current federal government would let that happen, no matter who is President. That's a conservative Southern good ol' boy pipe dream. And if people did try that in any state, they would end up like Ruby Ridge or Waco, Texas. The same type of people who had the same type of thinking and look what happened to them.
But it doesn't matter now, because this virus is going to change a lot of things that will probably bury such political radical notions. Because this virus has got us by the balls right now. It's like an outside invading force coming into the country and successfully reducing our numbers on each politically divided side. So it demands our attention, one way or another, whether we all disagree or agree politically.
Waco Texas? Apparently you don't know what that was all about panicky guy.
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MyNameIsTerry
Agreed. And what is pure? How many on the left and right don't agreed with others on their side? There are those to the fringes who would still cause friction because their views are much harder. The more moderate of each side would still have to deal with them.
Take our Labour party as an example. The hard left have spent the last few years in a bitter fight for control that has seen them lurch further left causing traditional working class voters to cease voting for them. The party thought having the most members in Europe was brilliant but they forget 500k is tiny in our country. They got trounced and now it's still kicking off as the factions fight dirty over the new leader who isn't as far to the left.
Similar examples can be found in the Tory party.
But Terry isn't Scotland talking about leaving the UK? And didn't the UK just leave the EU? See it's easy to just say oh it could never happen. Are you kidding me? Look around at world history. Look at recent history. Do you really think in a hundred years the world is going to look exactly the same?
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Noivous
.
Excerpt:
Secession movement might find fertile ground in today’s political climate.
Secession. It’s a crazy idea, right? But it’s less crazy than you might think. With all the secessionist movements across the world, it becomes easier to imagine breakups, even in the United States. It’s easier still when the pluses are so much greater than they were in the past, and the minuses so much smaller.
The pluses are so much greater today because the federal government’s footprint has grown so much larger. In the past, the states had less reason to chafe at the rule from Washington. A spring in the back yard didn’t become a federal wetland. Teachers didn’t receive letters from the Department of Education telling them how to run their schools. Local highway decisions weren’t made in Washington because of the strings attached to federal grants. Now America increasingly looks more like a unitary state than like the federal republic the Framers of the Constitution thought they had given us. With secession, we would reverse course.
If there’s more reason for a state to secede today, there’s also a much smaller downside. It wouldn’t perpetuate slavery in the South, as secession in 1861 would have done. Even after the Civil War had brought an end to slavery, federalism and “states’ rights” were discredited by southern Jim Crow laws and barriers to voting registration for black Americans. Since then, however, the civil rights revolution has taken hold and it’s much less likely that secession would be employed to discriminate against a minority. Even notorious racists such as Senator Jim Eastland (D-MS) understood how the 1965 Voting Rights Act and federal marshals had changed the equation. “When [the blacks] get the vote,” he said, “I won’t be talking this way anymore.” Far from bringing back Jim Crow, secession today in a place like California might give us the perfect paradise of woke progressivism.
Instead of the Civil War, think of the “velvet divorce” of the Czechs and Slovaks in 1993. Distinct in religion, language and culture, they had been combined in a country created in 1918 after the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The Slovaks were conservative and agricultural while the Czechs liked avant-garde plays and rock music. Czechoslovakia suffered through Nazi and Soviet rule, and then split apart into Slovakia and the Czech Republic upon the fall of communism. The two new countries, both Western and liberal, solved questions about their border, the division of assets and assumption of public debt through negotiation, and they’ve since maintained the friendliest of relations.
We’re now living in a secessionist moment in world history, as a result of three international developments. The first was the decolonization movement., which gave birth to new countries in Africa and Asia as European countries shrank. Like the American Revolution, the grant of independence was a form of secession from the colonial power. The second development was the end of the Cold War. When countries had faced the threat of Communist expansion, they did not wish to weaken themselves by dividing in two countries, or weren’t given that option. South Vietnam wasn’t permitted to remain independent of North Vietnam, for example. But after the Communist empire fell, twenty-four new countries emerged from behind the Iron Curtain. The third development was the worldwide embrace of free trade. When countries subjected foreign goods to high tariffs but let domestic goods pass freely, small size meant greater barriers to trade, and that was a cost. If a seceding state could enter into a free trade zone with the one it was splitting away from, and accede to its free-trade treaties, that cost would disappear.
All this points to a rise in American secessionism. To American states that chafe at rule from Washington, the federal government can seem like a distant and burdensome colonial power. That was the point of the Tea Party movement, after all. “Party like it’s 1773!” said Sarah Palin, recalling the first Tea Party. The fall of communism has also lessened the need for the powerful military that only a large state can provide. Finally, a seceding state might hope to retain free-trade links with the rest of the United States, as Quebec separatists had sought with their idea of sovereignty-association. (RELATED: Texit? Meet The Folks Making The Push For The Second Biggest State In The US To Secede)
In short, the stakes have been lowered, and that’s why a modern president might react to a secession referendum with more of James Buchanan’s prudence and less of Abraham Lincoln’s unyielding assertion of federal sovereignty. Secession might also seem like a reasonable way to resolve unbridgeable partisan differences, in which case an Article V convention to amend the Constitution might work out our own velvet divorce. Finally, the right of secession might find support in the Supreme Court, were it to follow the decision of the Canadian Supreme Court when it was faced with the possibility of a successful independence referendum in Quebec.
Cass Sunstein has said that “no serious scholar or politician now argues that a right to secede exists under American constitutional law.” He’s right. But I will show how it could still happen through constitutional means.
So here's what I think of this excerpt. Now granted, I'm not a Phd. I'm only an MA, and not in constitutional law, but in American history.
I don't think that secession is a far off idea or completely unheard of. For example, in the 2016 election, there were Californians who talked of secession because they didn't like the results of the election. There are groups in Michigan that talk of it all the time.
I do however, think that "the stakes" meaning the pitfalls for a state and the US if a succession were to occur, vary by the state. For instance, if California would secede, you can guarantee that there would be a backlash against that, as we are the fifth largest economy in the world. The rest of the US would not want to lose that. Maybe they wouldn't care so much if let's say Idaho were to secede? Not sure, but maybe not as much. However, even wealthy states like ours still rely on the federal government for funding. Even with our budget surplus we've had in the past few years, we've still been brought low by CV, and we're asking for aid just like every other state. If we cannot fully support ourselves, as a wealthy state, how would those states like Idaho survive on their own?
Additionally, I'd also like to point out that Lincoln wasn't the first president to face secession by a state in the US. During Andrew Jackson's presidency, South Carolina threatened to secede over tariffs that they didn't want to pay. Jackson lowered the tariffs, but threatened them with military force if they took their threats any further. He even lost his own VP over the incident. Jefferson considered it during Adams' presidency if the Alien and Sedition Acts weren't overturned. Then were was a whole convention on it again during Jefferson's presidency. This idea isn't new.
As far as I'm aware, secession isn't mentioned in our Constitution. Our Constitution sets up an "indestructible" union. However, if 3/4s of the states hold a Constitutional Convention and agree to let a state or states leave or conversely kick states out, the Constitution does support that.
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Noivous
Waco Texas? Apparently you don't know what that was all about panicky guy.
The point was the end result. What happened in the end. Not what started it - yeah I know about the weapons violation. Do you think the people in power behind the federal government are going to let any state succeed from the feds? They will do just like they did with the Waco Branch Davidians, but on a larger scale - it's called "siege". So that is what I'm talking about, because the incident at Waco is called the "Waco Siege" because of how the feds handled it in the end. And that's how people like Timothy McVeigh saw it, so he retaliated in return?
Constitution law or not, the last Civil War has many good historical lessons why the federal government will not let any state succeed.
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Noivous
I read a pretty good article the other day about the pending second civil war in the United States. Actually it was an excerpt from a new book coming out. But it made the case for dividing up the country into two countries essentially because the author felt that's what it has become and our differences have become so polarized that there's no going back. He said that it could be a bloodless break up. For years I've been saying we should just draw a line down the middle of the country and make one side, probably the right side, conservative America - CUSA and the left side liberal America - LUSA (of course everyone would refer to that side as loser but so be it). You could choose what side you want to live on and be a citizen of at the beginning but that's it once you've signed on that's the country you're a citizen of. The conservative side could be a capitalistic system while the liberal side could be total socialism.
Which side would you like to live on?
N..
Hi N.
I will stay and live in Aus:yesyes:
Hope you are well living in The Land of The Free.:Dand sending well wishes for your family x
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lolalee1
Hi N.
I will stay and live in Aus:yesyes:
Hope you are well living in The Land of The Free.:Dand sending well wishes for your family x
... and I will stay and live in Aotearoa (New Zealand), the best little place on the planet ... Aus comes in second Ms L, we are both so fortunate :hugs:
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PanickyGuy
The point was the end result. What happened in the end. Not what started it - yeah I know about the weapons violation. Do you think the people in power behind the federal government are going to let any state succeed from the feds? They will do just like they did with the Waco Branch Davidians, but on a larger scale - it's called "siege". So that is what I'm talking about, because the incident at Waco is called the "Waco Siege" because of how the feds handled it in the end. And that's how people like Timothy McVeigh saw it, so he retaliated in return?
Constitution law or not, the last Civil War has many good historical lessons why the federal government will not let any state succeed.
Fair enough PG. Reno blew it on that one big time. But what if you get a thousand Timothy Mcveigh's? Do you think that is not possible? Governments also cave-in as we found out with the USSR. And believe me I'm not advocating for secession I just think it's a pretty good debate. But I also believe that it can happen.
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AntsyVee
So here's what I think of this excerpt. Now granted, I'm not a Phd. I'm only an MA, and not in constitutional law, but in American history.
I don't think that secession is a far off idea or completely unheard of. For example, in the 2016 election, there were Californians who talked of secession because they didn't like the results of the election. There are groups in Michigan that talk of it all the time.
I do however, think that "the stakes" meaning the pitfalls for a state and the US if a succession were to occur, vary by the state. For instance, if California would secede, you can guarantee that there would be a backlash against that, as we are the fifth largest economy in the world. The rest of the US would not want to lose that. Maybe they wouldn't care so much if let's say Idaho were to secede? Not sure, but maybe not as much. However, even wealthy states like ours still rely on the federal government for funding. Even with our budget surplus we've had in the past few years, we've still been brought low by CV, and we're asking for aid just like every other state. If we cannot fully support ourselves, as a wealthy state, how would those states like Idaho survive on their own?
Additionally, I'd also like to point out that Lincoln wasn't the first president to face secession by a state in the US. During Andrew Jackson's presidency, South Carolina threatened to secede over tariffs that they didn't want to pay. Jackson lowered the tariffs, but threatened them with military force if they took their threats any further. He even lost his own VP over the incident. Jefferson considered it during Adams' presidency if the Alien and Sedition Acts weren't overturned. Then were was a whole convention on it again during Jefferson's presidency. This idea isn't new.
As far as I'm aware, secession isn't mentioned in our Constitution. Our Constitution sets up an "indestructible" union. However, if 3/4s of the states hold a Constitutional Convention and agree to let a state or states leave or conversely kick states out, the Constitution does support that.
California has a budget surplus? That's the first time I've heard that one. Are we talkin about a Democrat budget surplus or a real budget surplus? LOL!
I don't have an MA just a bachelor's degree... I purposely didn't say BS cuz that would draw some pretty good jokes. However I did test out of American History and United States Government in college. High School used to give us a pretty good education.
I appreciate you reading the entire piece Antsy. And thanks for the history lesson. Geographically California would be the one to go and with their huge population of Hispanics from Mexico it would make sense. In the piece that I attached the author speaks of trade deals between states that seceded. And with California's huge economy they would have no problem setting up beneficial trade deals. There has also been talk of dividing California into 2.
Of course if California secedes we will have to build the wall a lot longer!
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
As for Wise Monkey and LOLa...I do envy you living in Lollipop Land.
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
Call me Vee.
We HAD a surplus. Fires and CV have wiped it out.
As a public educator, there are still many schools who provide quality education.
Actually, the Californians calling for secession are actually two groups of mostly white people, not Hispanics/Latinos. One is a group of very leftist white people who were not happy with the results of the 2016 election. The other group are very right-wing white people who want to secede from California and make a 51st state.
But I'm going to give you advice that I give all my students, N. Be careful of black and white (all or nothing) thinking. The world is shades of gray. Generalizations made by black and white thinking are what often get us into trouble. There is never going to be any president, government, policy, etc. that is 100% perfect. There will always be pros and cons. And it's important that you evaluate with this in mind and get information from a variety of sources in order to get a full picture.
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
What you call "conservativsm" is just a basterdised version of liberalism. It's conservatism in name only because it doesn't conserve anything. These "conservatives" are down with everything from gay marriage to abortion and they love to shill for the Oligarchs. It's not surprising because they used to be Marxists before but they can shape shift depending on the situation. So, it won't make a difference if you split your country along these superficial ideological lines.
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hollow
What you call "conservativsm" is just a basterdised version of liberalism. It's conservatism in name only because it doesn't conserve anything. These "conservatives" are down with everything from gay marriage to abortion and they love to shill for the Oligarchs. It's not surprising because they used to be Marxists before but they can shape shift depending on the situation. So, it won't make a difference if you split your country along these superficial ideological lines.
Which only demonstrates how not even the right would get along. How hard right do people want it? Many more moderate right wingers wouldn't want to see abortion restricted or anything but equality for LGBT+.
Society moves on and so does the definition of current conservatism. 100 years ago would have looked pretty liberal to Victorian conservatives.
How broad will the church be? Will the far right with all their racism get on with the centre right? Of course not and despite many voting for the same parties they do so for very different reasons. The left is just the same as we are currently seeing with the Labour party mess.
Religion is another example. The hardliner won't get on with more moderate members who follow it line by line.
Let's remember much of it was never big on equality. Plenty of inequality on the left too.
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Noivous
But Terry isn't Scotland talking about leaving the UK? And didn't the UK just leave the EU? See it's easy to just say oh it could never happen. Are you kidding me? Look around at world history. Look at recent history. Do you really think in a hundred years the world is going to look exactly the same?
Yes, but I can't see a left right split, N. I could see a change in direction for main politics. The moderates hold the power here.
I'm not sure if Scotland will go. I think they will be in massive debt if they do and will need the EU to prop them up. But whilst the SNP have gained ground now they were losing it at the previous GE. I'm less aware of Scottish politics but we all know the other parties barely exist up there. And the SNP are very disingenuous wanting it all to be about independence all the time when support might be due to other policies. But the people have given them the mandate for a second vote now and we shall have to see.
Worth noting that many of Scotland's gripes with Westminster are the same as those of us above the old North South divide. When can we form a new country? But due to the decline of traditional industry across the UK we are left in debt to London who earn the money because we now a services based economy. Something which some London Remainers were mentioning when they said let's separate from the rest.
The EU again has many factors to it. Some of the arguments against membership are also the fault of Westminster e.g. lack of investment. The EU worsens it with cheap labour and free movement for bosses to set up elsewhere with less hassle. This also happens inside the UK as councils fight over businesses and offer cheap rents and lower wages than others.
So with the EU it's not just ideology. Some want to see a change in Westminster so that outside of London matters. That means removing the EU too because that gravy train has allowed for laziness in our leaders.
I do think Northern Island will go though. Unlike Scotland I suspect less on the mainland will bat an eyelid as they feel like Gibraltar to many of us.
Who knows, maybe it could happen? But I question just how many people in the UK are as fussed as Americans are about this right left battle. I question how many see the dividing line when our politics are more centrist as opposed to when it lurches away. I also think we are more apathetic than you guys.
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AntsyVee
Call me Vee.
We HAD a surplus. Fires and CV have wiped it out.
As a public educator, there are still many schools who provide quality education.
Actually, the Californians calling for secession are actually two groups of mostly white people, not Hispanics/Latinos. One is a group of very leftist white people who were not happy with the results of the 2016 election. The other group are very right-wing white people who want to secede from California and make a 51st state.
But I'm going to give you advice that I give all my students, N. Be careful of black and white (all or nothing) thinking. The world is shades of gray. Generalizations made by black and white thinking are what often get us into trouble. There is never going to be any president, government, policy, etc. that is 100% perfect. There will always be pros and cons. And it's important that you evaluate with this in mind and get information from a variety of sources in order to get a full picture.
Vee it is!
This one's for you!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxAv6ZYzzXc
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Noivous
Fair enough PG. Reno blew it on that one big time. But what if you get a thousand Timothy Mcveigh's? Do you think that is not possible? Governments also cave-in as we found out with the USSR. And believe me I'm not advocating for secession I just think it's a pretty good debate. But I also believe that it can happen.
Only if those thousands of Timothy McVeigh's get backed by another foreign country with military aid. Like when Russia/China backed Vietnam/North Korea or if you like, when the French backed the Thirteen Colonies during the American Revolutionary War. But that's a long, long shot in this modern era, though.
The 1917 Russian Revolution isn't really a good example compared to the current U.S., because the conditions that caused that was because of overcrowding, destitute living conditions and costly wars. The government back then was different from our own. The peasants and industrial workers were under Imperial rule. So in order for the U.S. to have a Revolution like early 1900's Russia did, those kind of impoverished conditions need to happen first. That's means just about everybody in the U.S. is damn near starving and living in poor conditions with few government officials at the top having a "Let them eat cake" attitude. That's not going to happen so long as capitalism continues and some of the people in the U.S. are living well enough to not care about other people's revolution. Everybody has got to have skin in that scenario and feel the personal impact to want to fight. Too many rich people and people doing well here won't care.
Look this has always been a popular debate among gun right advocates and Trump supporters that claim it could happen if Trump gets impeached or doesn't get another 4 years in office, but the reality is - unless something like the two above instances happen, I hate to burst your bubble but it's a dream and smack talk at best. There has to be the right conditions in order for it to happen, and although anything is possible and your right, there is always a slim chance it could happen, it won't. Not in this day and age.
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Noivous
i think that’s the best post I’ve ever gotten from you, N.
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PanickyGuy
Only if those thousands of Timothy McVeigh's get backed by another foreign country with military aid. Like when Russia/China backed Vietnam/North Korea or if you like, when the French backed the Thirteen Colonies during the American Revolutionary War. But that's a long, long shot in this modern era, though.
The 1917 Russian Revolution isn't really a good example compared to the current U.S., because the conditions that caused that was because of overcrowding, destitute living conditions and costly wars. The government back then was different from our own. The peasants and industrial workers were under Imperial rule. So in order for the U.S. to have a Revolution like early 1900's Russia did, those kind of impoverished conditions need to happen first. That's means just about everybody in the U.S. is damn near starving and living in poor conditions with few government officials at the top having a "Let them eat cake" attitude. That's not going to happen so long as capitalism continues and some of the people in the U.S. are living well enough to not care about other people's revolution. Everybody has got to have skin in that scenario and feel the personal impact to want to fight. Too many rich people and people doing well here won't care.
Look this has always been a popular debate among gun right advocates and Trump supporters that claim it could happen if Trump gets impeached or doesn't get another 4 years in office, but the reality is - unless something like the two above instances happen, I hate to burst your bubble but it's a dream and smack talk at best. There has to be the right conditions in order for it to happen, and although anything is possible and your right, there is always a slim chance it could happen, it won't. Not in this day and age.
PG - China didn't back N. Korea. They backed the Communist take over of Korea. The USA stopping them created North and South Korea... thank goodness.
BTW I don't know a single conservative who's ever mentioned to me that if Trump were to be impeached (which he was but was aquitted) or if he were to lose in November (which I highly doubt) we should try to secede from the nation. I mean even Antsyvee admits it was in large part the lefties that were talking of secession in California after Trump won in 16. And it was the lefties in Quebec who came within an inch of seceding from Canada a few years back. As a matter of fact it was the Democrats in the south that seceded causing the first civil war in the US.
But back to my original question which has yet to be answered by anyone.
CUSA or LUSA? Which one would you choose?
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Noivous
even Antsyvee
LOL even me? I didn't know I was that infamous on here ;) But thanks!
Quote:
CUSA or LUSA? Which one would you choose?
Neither. I choose the United Nation-States Under Vee. UNSUV...hmmm... that's kind of long. VeeLand? Vee's Dominion? hmmm, I'm gonna need to work on this...
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AntsyVee
LOL even me? I didn't know I was that infamous on here ;) But thanks!
Neither. I choose the United Nation-States Under Vee. UNSUV...hmmm... that's kind of long. VeeLand? Vee's Dominion? hmmm, I'm gonna need to work on this...
Great Veeland :yesyes:
If we can add a nation that spans centre left and right then I would probably be there. I'm not sure which otherwise, it would depend on how far to each side their society was. If we were talking communist on one and far right capitalist on the other I would rather jump in the sea and get paddling in hope of an island.
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
Regarding the point in the article concerning free trade zones and friendly relations take a look at our divorce from the EU. Messy, endless stalling tactics and tit for tat dummy throwing over breaking agreements.
I think you would see two warring bitter sides arguing on a foundation of all the old arguments despite being independent.
You would obviously weakens yourselves which presents the problem of China, the EU, etc who would be looking to throw their weight around trying to the you into red tape that right now you are far too big for. Just as the EU is trying with us right now.
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Noivous
PG - China didn't back N. Korea. They backed the Communist take over of Korea. The USA stopping them created North and South Korea... thank goodness.
Naw man, you got some of that backwards. Here, look this up...
Quote:
The Korean War - was a war between North Korea (with the support of China and the Soviet Union) and South Korea (with the support of the United Nations, principally from the United States). The war began on 25 June 1950 when North Korea invaded South Korea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War
Unless you are one of those people thinks they are entitled to their own opinions as fact?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Noivous
BTW I don't know a single conservative who's ever mentioned to me that if Trump were to be impeached (which he was but was aquitted) or if he were to lose in November (which I highly doubt) we should try to secede from the nation. I mean even Antsyvee admits it was in large part the lefties that were talking of secession in California after Trump won in 16. And it was the lefties in Quebec who came within an inch of seceding from Canada a few years back.
I didn't clarify enough, so this is on me, my bad - no I meant start a civil war or insurrection over the loss of gun rights or if Trump got removed from office or lost this November; which BTW the title of your thread seems to be misleading, if all you are going to be talking about is states seceding. And BTW, I highly doubted Trump would lose in November too, until this virus came along and "F"ed up the economy, but now, I don't know and you don't know for sure either. Because we mostly vote with our wallets and as that old saying goes, money talks and everything else walks. I don't see the economy getting back to the way it was before the virus hit us, by this November, so Trump might be screwed. So don't get your hopes up, is all I'm saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Noivous
As a matter of fact it was the Democrats in the south that seceded causing the first civil war in the US.
Dude, come on. That's disingenuous. You know full well those Democrats back then are today's Republicans. They relabeled themselves over the years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Noivous
But back to my original question which has yet to be answered by anyone.
CUSA or LUSA? Which one would you choose?
I'm a Independent, I like things to stay in the middle or moderate. I wouldn't choose either. There are a lot of conservatives out there who want us to go back to the 1950's or even pre-Wilson era. And there are a lot of liberals out there who think we should become European Democratic socialist overnight. But I don't. Sometimes I vote Republican and sometimes I vote Democrat, it just depends on how moderate they are.
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PanickyGuy
Dude, come on. That's disingenuous. You know full well those Democrats back then are today's Republicans. They relabeled themselves over the years.
I'm a Independent, I like things to stay in the middle or moderate. I wouldn't choose either. There are a lot of conservatives out there who want us to go back to the 1950's or even pre-Wilson era. And there are a lot of liberals out there who think we should become European Democratic socialist overnight. But I don't. Sometimes I vote Republican and sometimes I vote Democrat, it just depends on how moderate they are.
PG is right about political parties. The Confederate Democrats so have more in common with today’s Republican Party than today’s Democratic Party. Though neither party is an exact replica.
most Americans today are moderates. If you look at all the polls, most mix and match on the issues.
I wonder if instead of asking or hoping for secession, you might ask about the pros and cons of a two-party system?
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Noivous
But back to my original question which has yet to be answered by anyone.
CUSA or LUSA? Which one would you choose?
Doesn't matter because it won't happen :lac:
Positive thoughts
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AntsyVee
PG is right about political parties. The Confederate Democrats so have more in common with today’s Republican Party than today’s Democratic Party. Though neither party is an exact replica.
Yeah it's an old false equivalency fallacy that I've seen a lot of hard right conservatives use many times against today's liberal/democrats, especially on the back and forth arguments about racial inequalities between the two parties. So it's a stab back at today's democrats or to make them look just as immoral in some way. And the reason why hard right conservatives pull that false equivalency fallacy, is because they know not too many people in the U.S. are educated enough about U.S. political party history or cares about it. And so, when some people hear that, they think - Oh yeah, it is those same guys that supported slavery and fought a civil war over it. Nope! Not the same people.
I'm not sure who on the conservative side came up with that one, but it's a slick argument tactic. Anyway I went back and did some research, just to see when the split of the Democrat party happened and I found this.
Quote:
The Democrats also swept to large majorities in both houses of Congress and among state governors.
Roosevelt altered the nature of the party, away from
laissez-faire capitalism and towards an ideology of economic regulation and insurance against hardship. Two old words took on new meanings: "liberal" now meant a supporter of the New Deal while "conservative" meant an opponent.
[70]
Conservative Democrats were outraged and led by
Al Smith they formed the
American Liberty League in 1934 and counterattacked.
They failed and either retired from politics or joined the Republican Party. A few of them, such as
Dean Acheson, found their way back to the Democratic Party.
[71]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...mocratic_Party
Ah so that's what and who caused the political switch and when it finally happened. Interesting, because I thought it happened sometime before Roosevelt.
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
Yes, that’s accurate, PG.
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PanickyGuy
And there are a lot of liberals out there who think we should become European Democratic socialist overnight. But I don't. Sometimes I vote Republican and sometimes I vote Democrat, it just depends on how moderate they are.
This one always confuses me and I think it's more an American impression of us. The UK have recently rejected a big push to socialism. Countries like France and Germany may look liberal too but there areas where they are less so than we are. The EU may look liberal but it was based on trade and always aims to look after the company bosses.
As Vee mentioned we tend to have a mixture. So we have a welfare state. There are plenty who would do away with it but the swing voters and moderates matter here. Neither hard left or right can win anything as they are a smaller group. In recent years, as the two main parties have lurched further away from the centre, they have suffered for it.
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
Well, that’s what I mentioned to N before, Terry. All-or-nothing thinking and generalizations don’t do a lot of good when it comes to people and their societies. A lot of times the labels just serve to divide us further rather than unite us.
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MyNameIsTerry
This one always confuses me and I think it's more an American impression of us. The UK have recently rejected a big push to socialism. Countries like France and Germany may look liberal too but there areas where they are less so than we are. The EU may look liberal but it was based on trade and always aims to look after the company bosses.
As Vee mentioned we tend to have a mixture. So we have a welfare state. There are plenty who would do away with it but the swing voters and moderates matter here. Neither hard left or right can win anything as they are a smaller group. In recent years, as the two main parties have lurched further away from the centre, they have suffered for it.
I may be wrong in adding the word "European" in front of "Democratic socialism". But here is the thing - they definitely tried to teach and inspire Democratic socialism in a lot of college classes here in the U.S. As a matter a of fact, I once had a Sociology professor who talked about it all the time in class and he called it "Democratic socialism". He'd even have us take tests on the subject, once in a while. That was a long time ago for me, but it's now being taught and influenced more then ever in most U.S. colleges.
Now, here is the other thing, we now have senators like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who preach about Democratic socialism all the time, and to back them up is at least one political news organization named The Young Turks or TYT. At least that's the biggest one I know of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Young_Turks
So what these three want and their followers (mostly the younger generations), is the same thing that most European countries have - Banned guns, free healthcare/medicare for all, free college, higher wages, wages while being unemployed no matter under what circumstances, very strict anti-pollution laws, and of course higher taxes on the rich here in the U.S. and they want it to stay that way, forever. And from their perspective, the rest of us too, most European countries have that, right? Hence why they and the rest of us over here in the U.S. call it Democratic socialism. I personally added the European part because, well, that's where they're looking at. As in - we should have the same political structure as they have in Europe by now - type of thought process.
But on top of all that, I guess there could be more confusion because these three and their followers really don't call themselves liberals either, even though they support some liberals in the Dem party in the U.S. (depends on how far those libs lean left) But Bernie Sanders actually calls himself a Democratic socialist, not a liberal, Yet Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and TYT call themselves "Progressives" not liberals. But to a lot of us over here in the middle, moderate, and to all the right leaning conservatives, the rest of us altogether see these particular three as socialist that want Democratic socialism, particular the kind you got over in Europe. Well see, based on our country being mostly capitalists, with some meager social welfare programs, and even those are a pain to get on I might add because hard right leaning capitalist try damndest to discourage it, a lot people here who are Independent, moderate right, leaning right, and even some who lean left, but are moderate left, well that type of social political ideology just rubs them the wrong way and they fear it. And as they often say - Well that's socialism and we won't tolerate it! But that speech mostly comes out of the mouths of conservative righties/Republicans while the rest of us think it, but don't say it. Because most of us middle of the road moderates or independents believe we should at least have some social welfare programs. like national universal healthcare.
I hope that helps clarify some things, maybe? I'm not sure of any other way to explain why a lot of us over here in the U.S. think Europe is mostly made up of Democratic socialist.
Edit to add: I guess what I'm trying to say in a nutshell, it's your social programs, which we don't have and is just foreign to a lot us over here in the U.S., yet it's been rising in popularity with some groups over here in the U.S. If that makes anymore sense?
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PanickyGuy
Naw man, you got some of that backwards. Here, look this up...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War
Unless you are one of those people thinks they are entitled to their own opinions as fact?
I didn't clarify enough, so this is on me, my bad - no I meant start a civil war or insurrection over the loss of gun rights or if Trump got removed from office or lost this November; which BTW the title of your thread seems to be misleading, if all you are going to be talking about is states seceding. And BTW, I highly doubted Trump would lose in November too, until this virus came along and "F"ed up the economy, but now, I don't know and you don't know for sure either. Because we mostly vote with our wallets and as that old saying goes,
money talks and everything else walks. I don't see the economy getting back to the way it was before the virus hit us, by this November, so Trump might be screwed. So don't get your hopes up, is all I'm saying.
Dude, come on. That's disingenuous. You know full well those Democrats back then are today's Republicans. They relabeled themselves over the years.
I'm a Independent, I like things to stay in the middle or moderate. I wouldn't choose either. There are a lot of conservatives out there who want us to go back to the 1950's or even pre-Wilson era. And there are a lot of liberals out there who think we should become European Democratic socialist overnight. But I don't. Sometimes I vote Republican and sometimes I vote Democrat, it just depends on how moderate they are.
What are you talking about? Yesterday's Democrats are today's Republicans? Nice try. who pushed the civil Rights act through the Congress in 1964? The Republicans. The guy who shot Kennedy, Lee Harvey Oswald was a Socialist Democrat btw - same as Bernie. Senator Robert Byrd who served from 1959 to 2010 (that's pretty recent) was once a Klan recruiter. The Klan was the militaristic wing of the Democrat party and you know it...the party of FDR and Truman when the KKK was going strong. The Democrat party has kept the black community on their urban plantations for 60 years. The Democrats own the inner city machines throughout the nation. Like Trump said in 16...give us a try what do you have to lose? Well they gave him a try. Under President Trump the black community (pre-covid) has seen it's lowest unemployment in the history of the country.
I highly doubt you're an independent.. there's really no such thing PG. I'm not a Republican. I'm a conservative. And believe me I fully expect Trump to win a second term. Once he starts hitting the campaign trail and voicing why we need to get US companies out of communist China and is it really a good idea to have open borders in the era of Covid? And who's more qualified to get the economy going again than Trump? I expect he's going to pitch a new round of tax cuts for the working class to boost revenue as well. And oh those rallies of his... because they're coming back ya know.
But you got me on Korea... I'll give you that.
BTW Did you know the man Mohammed Ali was named after was a Kentucky politician?
Cassius Clay...a Republican.
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
Oh yeah and also Jackie Robinson...the guy who broke the color barrier in Major League Baseball...a Republican.
-
Re: America's 2nd Civil War
The Dems love to rewrite history.