Started By
Message

re: Liberals calling for National Divorce seem confused

Posted on 9/17/21 at 9:57 am to
Posted by GeauxTigerTM
Member since Sep 2006
30596 posts
Posted on 9/17/21 at 9:57 am to
quote:

None of you have the will to accept the existence of a party that isn't YOUR party.


This is false.

I've pointed this out many times lately, but there was a time when both parties were pulling generally in the same direction. See the Nixon-Kennedy debates form 1960. Compared to today, it looks like a Republican primary debate. There were differences, but both were strongly anti-communist, openly against federal control of education, etc. They differed in the best ways to achieve the goals...but the goal were a shared American exceptionalism. It's actually crazy to watch how often they make a point of talking about how they agree with the other.

Today, we have Matter and Anti-Matter. It's no longer a question of coexistence, because the mere presence of the other side (which is diametrically opposed to nearly everything the other side wants out of life) means the other has no meaningful way to exist in the country. We simply want completely different things now...as evidenced by a Democrat Party which has lurched so far to the left that if JFK were alive today and plopped here out of the blue he'd have virtually nothing in common with the current leaders, which act far more like the Communists he opposed in his day.
Posted by SquatchDawg
Cohutta Wilderness
Member since Sep 2012
20064 posts
Posted on 9/17/21 at 9:57 am to
A core of liberal thinking is that it's not just enough for them to do what they want...but instead to force everyone else to live and do as they say.

Our current system is set up exactly to do what they're talking about through the states but convincing others that their idea is right in order to gain a majority is too much work. It's much easier to dictate to everyone what they should do.
Posted by PizzaPie
Member since Sep 2021
170 posts
Posted on 9/17/21 at 10:03 am to
quote:

This is false.

I've pointed this out many times lately, but there was a time when both parties were pulling generally in the same direction. See the Nixon-Kennedy debates form 1960. Compared to today, it looks like a Republican primary debate. There were differences, but both were strongly anti-communist, openly against federal control of education, etc. They differed in the best ways to achieve the goals...but the goal were a shared American exceptionalism. It's actually crazy to watch how often they make a point of talking about how they agree with the other.


EXACTLY

This pretense that somehow, even with a split, the residents on either side of the divide would suddenly be 100% kumbaya is child like thinking.

It would simply allow people to gravitate towards areas that GENERALLY were more to their liking.
Posted by ocelot4ark
Dallas, TX
Member since Oct 2009
12536 posts
Posted on 9/17/21 at 10:08 am to
quote:

Every nation on the planet is the product of push and pull regarding boarders and self determination.


Including, most notably, the USA. But that's not we're talking about, is it? We're talking about "divorce" from our current position. What does that look like/result in? Does the "liberal" side ever have a conservative victory? Or the inverse in conservativeland? If the "post-divorce" USA is illustrated by a Democrat land and Republican land, there's no democratic values left. So what the frick are we fighting for? To have 2 competing dictatorships?

Sometimes your side doesn't get what it wants. AWESOME. That's how it should work. It's called checks and balances.


quote:

There are people of every party in every state.

Having sovereign states would simply allow people to use their feet to decide where they fit in best. You can't get more freedom loving than that!


You can't do that already? This is so fricking stupid.
Posted by ocelot4ark
Dallas, TX
Member since Oct 2009
12536 posts
Posted on 9/17/21 at 10:09 am to
quote:

Homesick Tiger



Who can't I accept? I don't want Dems or Reps to go away. They're both crucial. Civics, ya know. If anything, it'd be nice to have some additional choices. The worst thing that ever happened to this country was us only having two major consolidations of power.
Posted by ezride25
Constitutional Republic
Member since Nov 2008
26551 posts
Posted on 9/17/21 at 10:10 am to
The problem is that while they may want to move to California and go full communist, they also want to take the tax revenue from the entire nation in order to do it.

White privilege? The great reset? What do you think these are about?

They don’t believe that you should have access to what you’ve worked for. Their American dream is that they control it, all of it, not you.
Posted by OysterPoBoy
City of St. George
Member since Jul 2013
44787 posts
Posted on 9/17/21 at 10:11 am to
Trump will have to win and force it through. No way a Democrat gives up power over people.
Posted by ocelot4ark
Dallas, TX
Member since Oct 2009
12536 posts
Posted on 9/17/21 at 10:15 am to
quote:

This is false.



LINK

We refuse to be happy.
This post was edited on 9/17/21 at 10:16 am
Posted by PizzaPie
Member since Sep 2021
170 posts
Posted on 9/17/21 at 10:17 am to
quote:



Including, most notably, the USA.
Correct. And, just has happened thousands of times the world over, sometimes, nations lose the cohesiveness they once had and correctly decide to go their own way. The US though was one of the first to design itself with a slight bulwark against this by saying, "hey, we'll let the states kinda do their own thing for the most part".

quote:

But that's not we're talking about, is it? We're talking about "divorce" from our current position.
Ya know, you could actual read to comprehend on occasion rather than read to respond. The OP is saying, "hey, we don't need a LITERAL divorce, because have states rights written right there into out structure. We simply need to use it again!

quote:

Does the "liberal" side ever have a conservative victory?
Are you somehow unaware of how the nation was founded and what the framers had to say about state sovereignty? They never intended that states would effectively become "counties" in an overall Federal State. If you don't know that, brush up.

States, obviously, would, just as any typical country does, have push and pull among their citizens. The KEY difference being, if I live in state X and, somehow, state X starts to move farther away from how I think than I'm comfortable with, I might choose to move to state Y and X won't come along behind me to frick with me via the Fed.

quote:

So what the frick are we fighting for? To have 2 competing dictatorships?

There is literally nothing in all of this world that should lead you to this conclusion. frick. If we had an actual civil war, you wouldn't get that result.

As was already pointed out to you, even nations with mostly shared values have differences among their citizens about how to do things. Hell. Just me. I'm pro-life. Non religious. Anti-death penalty. There would likely be ZERO states that met ALL of my views exactly. Which is perfectly normal.

quote:

You can't do that already? This is so fricking stupid.

No. You can't. Because our Fed has become THE state. Actual states have less and less sovereignty and that's only going in one direction, towards EVEN LESS.
Posted by PizzaPie
Member since Sep 2021
170 posts
Posted on 9/17/21 at 10:20 am to
quote:

LINK

We refuse to be happy.
Are you seriously going to force me to spell out for you how your link doesn't address the OP in any way?
Posted by Shamoan
Member since Feb 2019
13788 posts
Posted on 9/17/21 at 10:20 am to
quote:

I've seen another thread on this board about this "National Divorce". Can you give me the particulars of what they are wanting?


Posted by ocelot4ark
Dallas, TX
Member since Oct 2009
12536 posts
Posted on 9/17/21 at 10:21 am to
quote:

No. You can't. Because our Fed has become THE state. Actual states have less and less sovereignty and that's only going in one direction, towards EVEN LESS.



Just look at FL. TX totally didn't just upend abortion. Right?

Y'all just throw shite at the wall to support notions that the sky is falling. Gee. I wonder why.
Posted by ocelot4ark
Dallas, TX
Member since Oct 2009
12536 posts
Posted on 9/17/21 at 10:22 am to
quote:

Are you seriously going to force me to spell out for you how your link doesn't address the OP in any way?



I wasn't talking to you or that point in this instance. Are you going to be disingenuous all day?
Posted by CleverUserName
Member since Oct 2016
17441 posts
Posted on 9/17/21 at 10:24 am to
quote:

Well. As it is, the few remaining KKK members must be sitting on their sofas in a permanent state of bewilderment watching the left demand segregation!!!


That’s exactly right. We went from lunch counter sit ins since white democrats wouldn’t serve blacks back to video just yesterday of a white democrat kicking a black family out of a restaurant. And another video of a white democrat refusing entry to a black family to another restaurant.

Full freaking circle.
Posted by PizzaPie
Member since Sep 2021
170 posts
Posted on 9/17/21 at 10:24 am to
quote:


Just look at FL. TX totally didn't just upend abortion. Right?

Y'all just throw shite at the wall to support notions that the sky is falling. Gee. I wonder why.

I didn't say the sky is falling

And, individual situations don't disprove the overall rule.

I literally said, "hey, there's no reason we need a national divorce............we can just got back to REALY having a 10th Amendment and that would be sufficient".

You're the one acting like actually following our constitution amounts to creating dueling dictatorships.
Posted by Bard
Definitely NOT an admin
Member since Oct 2008
59194 posts
Posted on 9/17/21 at 10:27 am to
quote:

My point is simply that it doesn't matter what their specific wants are.


I disagree. If they want to carve off the coastal parts of Cali, OR and WA as the new country if Libtopistan, more power to them. I'm sure their eventual Chinese overlords will help them create the diverse and inclusive environment they so desire.
Posted by PizzaPie
Member since Sep 2021
170 posts
Posted on 9/17/21 at 10:34 am to
quote:



I disagree. If they want to carve off the coastal parts of Cali,
The point of my OP is that no carving is required.

If out 10th Amendment went back to actually existing, that would be sufficient.

As to the rest. Well yes. It's my firm belief that were we to do this, the hard left states would falter like MFers and either adjust or see an exodus.

But, we'd get a WHOLE LOT of experimentation within an overall nation. So, it wouldn't matter if I'm correct. If I'm wrong and the states that went hard left flourished while those that went hard right faltered, people would vote with their feet.

You'd probably end up with a national map in terms of political demographics that looked more similar to 1980 than now in that there would be blue spread out everywhere and red spread out everywhere with some slightly heavier red and some slightly heavier blue
Posted by PizzaPie
Member since Sep 2021
170 posts
Posted on 9/17/21 at 10:37 am to
quote:

TX totally didn't just upend abortion. Right?
Also, did they"

Cause last I checked, the Federal government can STILL, if they so choose, tell Texas to get fricked since we've totally abandoned the 10th Amendment.

Posted by ocelot4ark
Dallas, TX
Member since Oct 2009
12536 posts
Posted on 9/17/21 at 10:42 am to
quote:

And, individual situations don't disprove the overall rule.



What's a MORE divisive issue than abortion? It's a test of one (auditing standard). If your theory isn't applicable to the most divisive issue, it's not valid.
Posted by PizzaPie
Member since Sep 2021
170 posts
Posted on 9/17/21 at 10:45 am to
quote:

What's a MORE divisive issue than abortion? It's a test of one (auditing standard). If your theory isn't applicable to the most divisive issue, it's not valid.


You only think this because you've got this warped idea that if there was a real split, or even just more state sovereignty, that this means you suddenly have 100% agreement inside the entities. Which, of course, is silly and not based on any reality that has existed.........ever.

Why are you so against going back to a more robust understanding of the 10th Amendment? It's weird.
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 4Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram