A Nation based on disunity will not for much longer lead the world stage.

FDR got much further along the road to dictatorship than any other American politician.

 

interesting article that I think will help you see how we have strayed, if you know how the nation is run today.

http://www.whatwouldthefoundersthink.com/the-founders’-fear

 

Yeah, all that constitutional democracy and concomitant rights and freedoms are failures of government in their diabolical plot to control the bumbling herd. - totally old news.

No doubt your new glorious empire will last a thousand years.

 

I got over the last election a long time ago. You Trumpsters and your orange owl fuhrer are the ones who keep bringing it up. Trump did it again last Friday.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make with Mussolini and Stalin.

But demogogues have far more often risen from the right than they have from the left. Stalin led an internal power grab, not a movement.

But the evidence that the hard right wing in the US would do so abounds throughout our history.

And it is certainly readily apparant now, in cult of personality that has grown around this pied piper.

 

What 'rights'? Between the TSA scanners, and between our citizenship being devalued(in the sense that anyone and everyone can come here.) The United States is at a disintegrating moment. You might feel as though this disintegration is "your values", but it may also positively stun you that they are not my values.

But since I'm tired of being absolutely insulted, you want me to go "far-right" wing? I'll go there. Without the South, and Midwest the North would be colonized ages ago. That's the REAL reason for the Civil War. Lincoln was aware that the loss of strategically important land would have made it easier for invasion(Not to mention, the fewer citizens, the fewer troops there would be for the Union.) The loss of the South/Midwest would be a strategically crushing blow for the "union"(which, in reality was Northern. There wasn't an American Union, and arguably there still isn't.)

The North enriched itself off the South/Midwest, doing so even to this day as the North industrializes while the rest of the "union" falters behind. But now that the North(and some Pacific-Western States like California) are bellied up in debt, the other reason for not having those "others" leave is because if they leave, the debted Northern/Liberal States would collapse on yourselves.

You don't even need a military collapse anymore, a financial one is just as inevitable.

Since the South/Mid-west is already politically aligned, a new political State between them is inevitable. Your allied State California is caught on the coasts, and so will likely exist as its own country, but poses the same problems on its own lonesome.

The reason the Civil War was fought, was out of a patriotism to the Union. Which in your own words, doesn't exist today. If the Northern States were to falter, no one South/Mid-west would blink. Maybe individual family members in the respective territories, but the states itself? Nay.

So there won't be a second Civil War. Detest for the Liberals means that a North collapse won't garner much sympathy.

Likewise, in your arrogance the industrialization of the North has been completed so you'll ignore the defense that the South/Mid-west give you in being territories of the US. The South/Mid-western Union would have to work quickly to establish a buffer for itself and this is probably the greatest mistake of the Civil War. Neither the British nor French entered.

You might think the "INTL" community will step in for the Northern States, but where does that leave you? California's on its own, and you're basically the Atlantic Strip again(with maybe some mid-northern States like Ohio). The INTL Community would laugh. In terms of geographical area and geopolitical force, all of that is leaving with the South. It's more likely this time, that geopolitical power and support would go to the Southern States. Especially since the North has completed its industrialization and is now on its lonesome.

Without a "moral" slavery question, or without the force of the federal government militarily, the Northern States would quickly disintegrate.

That's a future I can easily envision as happening if unification doesn't happen. Then you'll have to put your New Green deals on hold for a while. You just won't have the financial capital that left from like 35 States.

 

I won't hide my arrogance in saying I'll gladly take the role(since well I proposed it.) but am more than prepared to campaign for that position. Think of it as the first and last political campaign, as the biggest benefit to the Empire will be that politics will no longer hold sway over the people, who can focus instead on their domestic output and quality of life, the greatest utilities of a free and prosperous people.

It was foolish to have to ask non-political citizens to make political decisions. This is rectifying that wrong, and enabling the greatest possible strength of our union.

 

What a bunch of paranoid ridiculous nonsense.

Where do you get this stuff?

Especially that truly warped rendition of the reason for the Civil War, which has no resemblence to anything real at all!

Beyond that, I hardly know where to begin.

 

People's interpretations of history differ. I happen to have my own interpretation of history, that in my view is accurate. The moral grays of slavery clouded up what is basically a modern geopolitical situation: The North couldn't afford to lose the South, or its cheap labor. Meanwhile the South couldn't afford industrialization without assistance, something Lincoln didn't think of until AFTER the war.

To this day Northerners/Liberals look down on the South/Mid-west(ie: Conservatives) with absolute disdain. You do so daily. Given this, you're stunned why they're not gung-ho to remain in such a union? Slavery and racism may have past us, but the desire to remove themselves from the Union remains strong. And the North is to blame for that.

Because over the course of the last century, instead of investing in the South/Mid-west("that side of the country"), you focused exclusively on yourselves. The beautiful karma, is that since the spending wasn't evenly divided, neither is the debt. As long as the Federal Government doesn't act as a de-facto Northern Agent(in its own survival for existence), there'd be a call for secession today.

The 2016 elections, showed the reality of the world map. And no, it isn't Donald Trump. They could've ran a rock and still beat Hillary(or nay, anyone else.) The North/Liberal base cares for itself, by itself and uses its holistic sense of "purity justice"(which you don't see the irony in) to divide everyone who is not them.

And you seem to think that the election of such a said candidate will "heal all wounds". I'm afraid to beg to differ. The differences will pester, there won't have been a handshake from your side and we'll essentially replay 1850 in about 20 years. But I'm hopeful with a non-violent conclusion due to absolute apathy on both sides.

 

With all due respect there is the normal arrogance of youth and accomplishment and then there is arrogance that is problematic, and saying that you think being the New Emperor of America is a realistic goal for yourself seems to border on that, at the least. Then again, I don't know you, but even there I have to wonder how any future Imperial Autocrat of the world's most powerful nation would have time for such offal as are we.

Can I be a baron, your grace? I have many interesting ideas for various provinces in the Chesapeake

 

You quoted my post, but didn't say anything. I suppose there's meaning behind that? @Aleksander Ulyanov

 

Sigh......

Building up the South?

I also have no idea where you got the silly notion that the US government directed investment or the economy.

And, since your grasp of history seems on par with your geography........ the North developed the way it did because it had navigable rivers and natural resources, something the South does not have.

The South was economically dependent on the North, and the export market to England, which depended heavily on New England shipping companies.

All of the major trunk railroads before the war ran largely east to west, the Pennsylvania, the Erie and the Baltimore and Ohio. And the Cotten Exchange was in New York, not Charleston or Savannah. That was so before the war, and a gigantic bootleg trade in cotten during the war continued (indeed, the South furnished the cotten for the Union Army). The South's one and only hope for victory was alliance with Britain. Instead, the British developed cotten in Egypt and India, safe within the Empire, and the South lost half their market.

After the war, the dependence deepened, as the South had essentially committed economic suicide.

Of course the white people resented the invastion and occupation of the South, which is what Reconstruction was. They would be Democrats for a century, until they felt betrayed by their party by northeast liberals who imposed civil rights on them. Then, they took their racism and their parochialism to the Republican party, where it found a new home.

 

Of course it doesn't have it. The North Atlantic are mostly Coastal States(and the same can be said for the States on the Pacific rim.) The only Southern state with any remote access is Texas. And you don't know where I got the idea that the federal government dictated funds? Are we really talking in the same 2019 era? Hell, the welfare programs started as a part of FDR's New Deal and I presume we're both well aware of Lend-Lease. So we're talking early mid-1930's for at least a bipartisan(between the two of us) recognition of government moved funds.

But it was made clear by Historians that Abraham Lincoln advocated for funds to Southern States after the war was over. Then tragically, he was assassinated.(though I hold Lincoln and the Northerners responsible for the war. William Davis tried to speak in peace before Fort Sumter. It was the Northern government, that did not recognize those peace negotiations.) Lincoln didn't give peace a chance, and sentenced 600,000 Americans to their untimely deaths.

But I'm glad you used the term "imposed" because that's exactly how a lot of us feel. We feel imposed to the so-called Liberal "moral justice" view of the world. It'll never change, totally dogmatic and its so called progressivism has not progressed our society: We're not richer, or healthier or more united. We do however, have more expenses for it.

And yes, I blame the GOP for a good portion of the problem. But even if we get rid of the GOP, the policies that have been with us since FDR will continue in its dogma. A dogma that heeds no listening. Well, maybe its time to listen to something else for a change: Neither GOP or Progressive.

 

Who are you talking to?

 

I guess some people still use lead paint.

 

Why are you even on this political forum? It's for political discussion, which I presume to be for people for at least an average IQ. What your post here demonstrates is that I'm sorely disappointed that that's not the case.

 

Some people seem to think that posting whatever stream of consciousness nonsense pops into their head at any given moment equates to political science. It does not. It seems a shame to waste time on such kiddy hour pointless blather.