Would you support splitting the U.S. into two nations?

Today is a perfect palindrome day in the world

 

There is ZERO to substantiate their falsehoods about BLM.

 

Your post shows the depth & intensity of the hatred of the far right against government--ALL GOVERNMENT--regardless of its merit. It also demonstrates the inability of the far right to work with others who show any disagreement with themselves. That all demonstrates an ineptitude for living in a democracy--which requires an ability to respect & work with others in disagreement. You extremist far-righters would rather destroy the nation & the Constitution than find ways to compromise & respect the views of others around you. What you generally don't forsee in your hatred, is that most far right supporters eventually end up creating is an authoritarian government that respects no one's rights. Your whole premise is unworkable, & it stinks.

You can't divide the citizens of the U.S. into two neat categories, like "left" & "right." Americans are much more complex, & span a much wider range of views. Plus, we are all mixed together in every location, so no state is purely left or right, & even those more closely so, still have sizable populations that would conflict with one choice only. Your post is NOT AN ANSWER. The answer is to learn to respect democratic values & live & work with them for the benefit of the nation as a whole. ALL Trump Republicans need to learn this lesson.

 

You are far too generous.
If you look really closely, you will see that we wish to return to the hunter-gatherer stage, like the admirable Yamomani Indians of the Amazon basin, or the pygmies of the Congo.
The war of one tribe against another, with no mercy to the weak (I guess I should include certain inhabitants of South Chicago in that list of admirable dog-eat-dog primitive societies as well.)
But, since to Lefties, all cultures are equal -- what's your objection?

 

Hunter gathers don't go to war...

 

Really, guys, you should want us out. A bit of territory is a small price to pay to rid the future Peoples Democracy of a bunch of old deplorable illiterate troglodytes!

Look at the roadblocks that people who still retain the toxic masculine "warrior culture" way of thinking are putting into your work in transforming the American military.

People who think warriors should have a "warrior culture" are preventing the Air Force from "diversifying" (everyone cross themselves, it's a Holy Word!) its demography and exclusionary culture!

Here's an academic article which explores this whole terrible business. (If you have access to JSTORE you can read the whole article, otherwise here's the abstract. If anyone is interested in reading the whole depressing thing PM me and I'll see if I can send you a copy.)

So c'mon folks! Kick us out, and we can take all those increasingly-irrelevant military people with their highly-prized "warrior" ethos, and you can keep those who are repelled by it and have that precious alternate demography and non-exclusionary culture !

Everyone's happy!

A kind of social Pareto optimality, as we deplorable rednecks might call it.

 

Rednecks were socialist rebels that tried to conquer West Virginia after years of oppression and murder. Definitely not deplorables. The term you're looking for is 'uneducated hick'.

 

Are you saying that hunter-gatherers don't fight each other, one tribe against another?

Or are you saying that they don't organize and train tens of thousands of young males, equip them with the latest technology (bronze-tipped spears or M4s, depending on the level of technology), organize their supply lines so that they can march hundreds, even thousands, of miles to conquer foreign peoples?
If that's what you're saying, sure, it's like saying hunter-gatherers don't do brain surgery, or have Lesbian Poetry Readings.

Because they sure as hell fight each other, often with great cruelty.

 

That's an interesting use of the term, not one I'd heard of before. It's probably what one learns at a 'Redneck Revolt' Marxist study group session.

It may be true that there were such people -- America has a violent history, with lots of class warfare -- , but the reality is, if you go into a bar anywhere in the US, and ask them what a 'redneck' is, they won't say, "they were socialist rebels fighting for the ust cause of an egalitarian inclusive society against the oppression of bourgeoisie," or whatever the Zinnian fairytale is.

But it does raise the possibility of a whole new line of "You know you're a redneci if .." according to the Progessive vision:

"You know you're a redneck if ..." ..... "you understand the importance of winning the petty bouirgeoise to the proletarian cause".

But, yes, the liberal boys and girls at the Ivies do think of white working class people as 'uneducated hicks', maybe able to re-wire a house or repair a transmission coolant line , but totally, deplorably, incapable of appreciating Judth Butler's contribution to poststructuralist queer theory.

 

@K9Buck said: ↑

I think you are mistaken in two suppositions here. It's not predictable in advance what proportion of the Black population would come along, or stay. (And if it's really a 'white ethnostate' that you want, as one Progressive mind-reader concluded, recall that 10% of the of the American Black population is something over four million people.)
But you are also mistaken if you think that the idea of a separate Blue America having 90% of the Black population would dismay Progressives. It's like telling them they will have to get all the National Parks. We know that Progressives love Black people and would be overjoyed at having a larger proportion of the population of Blue America be Black ... especially since the Blacks who would be in, or move to, Red America would be those race-traitors like Thomas Sowell, people who want to get their kids out of violent government-monopoly schools, who support strong policing, etc. People like Candace Owens and Alan West etc.

I know that Progressives love inner-city Blacks, because when a previously-white neighborhood in cities like Detroit or Chicago, started to get a few Black residents, ALL the whites fled. 'White flight' it's called.

Now of course we know why the deplorable conservatives fled: they're all racist neo-Nazi fascists. But why did the white liberals and Progressives flee?

Simple! They wanted to open up housing for Blacks!!! A totally different motivation, and entirely to their credit!

And look at that Progressive bastion, New York City. When the city school board chancellor proposed to bring the joys of diversity into all the city's schools, by having the schools where wealthy white liberals send their children, have to take a quarter of their students from among those who score below the standard -- ie largely white schools having to take in poor Blacks ... whoa, look what happened!

[SOURCE: https://www.theroot.com/watch-room-filled-with-rich-white-nyc-parents-gets-bi-1825600194]

Now there aren't too many conservatives in New York City, but there could have been a few among those parents. And of course they were motivated by their racism-fascism-homo/Islamo/trans-phobia and desire to have a white ethno-school. But the Progressives/liberals in the crowd of angry parents? What was their motivation?

Simple: they sincerely believed that moving Black students who couldn't meet the reading standards into a nearly-all-white school where all the kids are headed for the Ivies was a slap in the face for Black culture! The implication is that you can't get a good education in a school where most of the kids are not white! What a terrible racist thing to imply!

So ... they opposed bringing in 25% of kids who can't read into their schools because they are principled anti-racists!!!!

@K9Buck, you really shouldn't be so cynical about the motivations of our white Progressive friends! If all us semi-literate hicks left, and they got a society in which the South Chicago's became a much larger proportion of the population, they would positively squeal with joy!!!

We'd be doing them a great favor, which is another reason they should support Peaceful Separation.

 

Okay, everything you say is reasonable, and is a requirement for any modern democracy. We have to be able to get along with others with whom we disagree.

So, let me ask you some questions:

---1-- A Christian fundamentalist baker declines to bake a wedding cake celebrating a gay marriage. He is sued and fined an enormous amount and bankrupted.
Do you support that, or oppose it?

---2--- A group of 'Biker Patriots' -- you know the kind of people I mean, white males, not the sort you'd have at a seminar on sexual diversity at the local university -- want to have a rally in your public park. It's ostensibly to celebrate the American military. There will be lots of American flags.
Anti-Fa turn up to attack it.
Do you support them or oppose them? Should these 'Patriotic Bikers' have the right to have a rally right in the heart of a Progressive City?

---3--- A University lecturer writes an article stating that Western imperialism was not all bad -- in India, for instance, it was instrumental in breaking up the backwardness of rural Hindu villages and dragging them into the modern world. His university denies him tenure, after protests by outraged anti-imperialist students.
Do you support his having tenure -- assuming he is otherwise suitable for it? Or not?

---4--- A government employee writes on his blog that he was walking down the street one night and heard footsteps behind him. He turned around, and he writes that he was "relieved" to see that the young men behind him were white.

---5--- The Blacks at a college decree that no whites will be allowed on campus on a certain day. A white professor objects, and there is an altercation between them. He is told by the college president that the campus police will not intervene to protect him. He is forced to hold his lecture off campus.
Are you with the Black students, or with the white professor?

---6--- A conservative writer who has written a book on IQ and its effects on life chances, and its relation to genetics, which has a chapter on Black IQ and its
genetic links, is invited to speak on campus. A mob shouts him down, and then physically attacks him.
Your reponse?

 

1. If freedom is to have any real meaning, it must apply to everyone equally. Freedom of anything simply means having the right to be oneself in any way that's important to oneself, so long as that individual freedom doesn't interfere with someone else's freedom. In the example you cite, the bakery owner has every right to "believe" any religious belief he chooses, but he has no right to impose those "religious" beliefs onto others--including his customers. Personally, I would prefer the bakery owner & the customer find a more humane way of resolving their differences. Both sides have rights that are important to acknowledge & protect. The bakery owner does have the right to refuse service to customers for reasons that impact his business in harmful ways, but he doesn't have the right to refuse service in a business serving the public due to his particular, personal religious beliefs, if by doing so, he assaults or prevents that customer from enjoying his or her own individual rights & freedoms as a citizen of the U.S. We have to separate the freedom of religion here from the freedoms allotted to having & running a business that serves the public.
2. So long as their rally is peaceful--happening without violence or intimidation toward anyone, then I have no problem with the "Bikers" holding their rally. I would oppose having Anti-Fa attacking them. Any group that introduces violence into any demonstration--whether in support of or in opposition--that side is failing to observe or support those basic freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution.
3. A university is a place where every topic & every possible point of view on any topic should have the freedom to be expressed & discussed. So, it makes no difference whether I agree with a lecturer's point of view, he or she has every right to express it openly & in public. If a debate ensues on the topic, so much the better.
4. Such a response is not necessarily based on racism, though it certainly can be. It is a well known fact that criminal statistics in the U.S. show a preponderance of blacks cited as offenders. Of course that may well be a result of a bias by enforcement officers to focus on darker skinned people when responding to calls. In the example you cite, one would have to know more details to ascertain whether racism was involved, but in any case, no laws were broken, no one's rights abridged, & no harm done. It could be noted though, that violence at night can come from whites just as easily as from blacks,so personal safety can still be at risk on any night, depending on the location one is strolling in.
5. I am with the white professor, simply because no one has the right to impose their will over others based on racial priorities. The blacks here are wrong.
6. As stated in my response to #1 above, a college campus should be open to discussion of any topic from any point of view. Here, the writer/lecturer has information on IQ obtained over time from specialized research done by him, that could have valuable insights on human behavior. He certainly should have the right to report on his findings, whether they turn out to be valid later or not. Any mob, or mob behavior, regardless of their point of view, has no right to physically attack a speaker, so in this example, the mob is the wrong party.

Freedom is a valuable asset in any society & in any individual life. But freedom only has meaning if it is equally available to everyone in society. Any time anyone or any group uses intimidation or violence to oppose a counter point of view, that group is itself undermining the very freedoms they purport to uphold, & in so doing, weaken that freedom throughout society. Equality in society doesn't mean everyone becomes the "same." It means everyone has the "same" right to express themselves & their views publicly, without fear of assault. But they CAN expect a peaceful counter argument.

 

Okay, a very reasonable -- and traditional -- liberal response.

We agree on all but the first point. We should argue about that case, another time.

So we could get along without too much acrimony in the same country. The prospect of living under a majority of people who shared your view would not be too awful, from my point of view. I suspect most other conservatives here would agree but they'll have to speak for themselves.

However, it's my -- our? -- perception, that your view is an increasingly-rare one among people on the Left.

I have followed the Left/progressive response to issues similar to the last 5, and it is increasingly intolerant and authoritarian. I don't think this will change, except to become worse. And since I believe that the victory of this way of thinking on a national scale in inevitable, it means that people who think like me have to start considering our options.

I believe our only option, eventually, will be to push for a peaceful separation into two sovereign states, which co operate closely on the many matters of mutual interest which will exist, but which will allow each other to pursue their own courses with respect to internal affairs. (And I know that this view, at the moment, sounds stark raving mad.)

 

History provides numerous examples of countries dividing into separate sections based on controversial issues, from ancient times thru the recent present. Some succeeded in improving thru that division; others didn't. The U.S. tried it in 1861, over slavery. It led to the worst war this country ever experienced--by far, & a forced reunion that has never felt completely comfortable since. When I look at Korea or Vietnam, the impacts of division seem harsh & unfulfilling. The more recent division of Czechoslovakia, into Slovakia & the Czech Republic, seem to be a better outcome. But it's risky.

I have two significant reactions to your suggestion of dividing the U.S. over liberal vs conservative views. They are:
1. The geographic division of liberal vs conservative views in the U.S. generally follow the geographic division of urban vs rural settlement, though there are substantial exceptions inside each. While there may be a preponderance of liberals in urban areas & a majority of conservatives in rural ones, there are numerous members of the opposition residing in BOTH. Furthermore, change is the only constant in life, & change affects those who live in either side too, so over time, many individuals change their views & become members of the opposition thru gradual or sudden conversion. Plus, children often become members of the opposition as a natural process of seeking independence from parental dominance. And, finally, most countries don't exist long without establishing both urban & rural sections within itself. So, the issue will simply re-surface over a short time. Based on these thoughts, I don't really feel confident that dividing the country into two or more sections based on political differences will ultimately work. I think it far more likely that efforts to find compromise positions that both sides can live with, is a much better solution.

2. The U.S. has existed as a successful country since 1776, & at no time in its existence has there been a lack of political divisions. Yet, somehow, our predecessors managed to find compromise that kept everyone relatively happy. The only real exception was from about 1850-1865 (the Civil War era). I think a real patriot will care more about the country as a whole & what it offers in the way of all our individual freedoms, as more important than simply winning one's own personal point of view on any single issue. That's why the U.S. has been so successful for so long. And, America has offered the world a vision of human rights not offered by many other countries thru history. Even the U.S. has failed to live up to many ideals it preached to others, but it has gradually progressed toward that goal throughout its history, & still is. So, we have to ask ourselves, is this country, & what it stands for historically, & what it's been able to achieve over time, coupled with what it offers for a better future, worth keeping? Or should we abandon the experiment begun in the 1770s by our hallowed founding fathers? I remain loyal to the Constitution & the promise of an ever improving future. I have serious doubts that separation would lead to any more successful or comfortable outcomes.

 

More like Canada and Russia.

 

The Robots can keep the peace.The surveillance technocracy can enforce the separation distances and no go zones

 

California is nowhere near having the worst poverty rate in our country that distinction belongs to MISSISSIPPI with a 19.8% rate,California is 21 states better at 13.3% poverty rate and the 20 states between the two are pretty much bright RED SOUTHERN states except for 5 of them one of which is New York.

 

what’s 19.8 percent of the population of mississippi! and what 13.3 percent of the population of Cali? which number is bigger?

 

The split isn’t between north and south, it’s between urban, suburban and rural populations.
Even if each state becomes independent the divide won’t disappear.

 

No all the radical left wingers that love commies can go to a commie country. The sooner the better,

 

To have credibility you would have to define poverty.

 

Silly stuff....

 

Other modern countries are socialist and about as scary as Canada. They don't want Americans because they think we are insane.why are we the only modern country without a living wage healthcare great vacations great infrastructure daycare cheap college and training and mainly tax the rich something like their fair share. That is socialism everywhere but brainwashed GOP country. Thanks GOP and the misinformed

 

Great Nation of Leave Us the F Alone (LUF). Nations motto is 'If you don't like it here LEAVE!' National symbol is olive branches surrounding the middle finger. Everyone should then be able to live in their happy place.

 

Are you for real?