re: Liberals calling for National Divorce seem confused

quote:

---

Well Red states would just kick their sorry asses out! Easy fix.

---

Wouldn't have to kick them out

In a nation with a real 10th Amendment, the harder left states would continue their overly lavish approach while the other states did not.

People would simply leave of their own accord.

In all honest, this is what allows the left states to play dumb now. They look at a state like Alabama or Georgia and talk shite when they know FULL WELL that if they couldn't FORCE those states to prop up people who refuse to work, those people would MOVE to leftist states that do!

quote:

---

You can't believe in Democratic value and simultaneously hate the other side of the aisle.

---

Sounds like you are describing the loony left that espouse not providing healthcare to anyone that is not vaccinated. (in spite of the fact they claim healthcare is an inherent human right..)

quote:

---

At the county level, it's not as simple as red state / blue state.

---

It’s not even simple at the state level. Every state in the country has a significant portion of its population in the political minority. Every single one.

Unless the "red" areas embrace anarcho capitalism, a split will be pointless in the long run.

quote:

---

The Democrats have spent the last ninety years isolating power to the federal government instead of states as was originally intended by the Constitution.

---

How many states are currently telling the Federal Government to frick off when it comes to marijuana, again? Including Oklahoma?

If the American Marxist would relinquish their desires to control society from the east coast to the west coast and allow states to handle their own business there would be very little societal strife.

quote:

---

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.

---

Where the frick did I say this? Because I didn't. My point is that the first verse is the same as the 2nd.

quote:

---

Why are you so against going back to a more robust understanding of the 10th Amendment? It's weird.

---

Why are you so insistent that it would be altogether different than what we have now? People can't move to TX, FL, etc, now? They don't? 10th amendment certainly would seem to put an end to the abortion debate, though. I commend you on your consistency.

quote:

---

How is that they don't know that what they really are asking for is simply state sovereignty?

Think about it. A national "divorce" would simply involve states going their own way based on some splits in ideology.

---

Not entirely true. State sovereignty would not solve our border crisis, tax and spend policies (including the debt and welfare state), or using our military as a social Petrie dish.

quote:

---

We refuse to be happy.

---

Did you even read most of those things which are supposedly agreed upon by both sides? That reads like Democrats, and RINOs. There are no obvious conservative positions listed there. As with most things, it's three steps to the left, hold in place under a Republican administration, then three more steps to the left when a Dem gains back control.

For starters:

quote:

---

Immigration

A large bipartisan majority favors giving immigrants who were illegally brought to the US as children legal status and a path to citizenship.
A bipartisan majority would go further and provide a visa and path to citizenship to all undocumented workers who have been in the US for an extended period.
Very large bipartisan majorities favor increasing the number of work visas.
Bipartisan majorities favor more immigration judges to deal with asylum applications.
To deter further illegal immigration, there is not majority support for a stronger barrier on the southern border – but a large bipartisan majority favors requiring employers to use the E-Verify system to establish the legal status of all their employees and all new applicants.

---

That's laughable.

Or this:

quote:

---

Poverty Programs

Large bipartisan majorities favor increasing SNAP benefits (aka food stamps), but do not want them to be used for sweetened sodas or candy.
Bipartisan majorities also favor:
making pre-kindergarten available to all 4-year-olds in low-income families
raising the minimum wage to $9 an hour
expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit
major federal jobs programs in the event of an economic downturn.

---

quote:

---

Without the 10th, the 50 states would be MUCH more diverse in how they operated. I mean.........IMMENSELY more diverse! Like, not even close to what we have now.

---

I actually appreciate your take on this and obviously see what you're saying. It would be, unquestionably, a HUGE improvement actually living under a strict adherence to the 10th.

My issue, which may very well be a slightly different one in spirit if nothing else, is the one where we are a UNITED States. The UNITED part, at least for me, is not simply a description of our geography, but of a shared and respected history. A shared Americanism, so to speak. And while I think I'd be 100% happier in a country that returned power to the state level, it still leaves us connected as "Americans" with a large portion that dislike (and many of whom actually abhor) the very Americanism the rest of us cherish.

I'm failing to see how you've addressed this in your scenario. How do we come together as ONE nation again when we've truly gone our separate ways as states and essentially become islands of incredibly different lifestyles and viewpoints? What are the connective tissues that remain that make us all "American" then?

I ask that because I think this was possible when the Bill of Rights was written. While there were certainly differences, again, they were all pulling in the same direction. I'm not so sure how this works given the diametrically opposed lives we seemingly want to live. Yes, if we were completely separated, but I'm not sure how it works remaining together in any capacity...but I'm interested in reading your take.