By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
ConservagameR said:
Torillian said:

I'd be curious to hear the bolded explained. Whatever it is it apparently is enough that we should do civil war 2, so it should be interesting. 

TallSilhouette said:

Talk about a mask off moment...

Wow. This reminds a lot me of something. History does really repeat itself.

Me : They should get out while the getting is good in that case.

You : You mean... they should kill everyone? OMG!

Me: Wait what? No. Are we even having the same conversation?

Cathy is a gem btw. 

Are you honestly taking issue with me equating calling for some states to try to leave the union with a civil war? You do remember the last time some states tried this don't you?

Let's stop being pedantic and just explain what the hell has happened lately that you think some states should "divorce" then if that terminology makes you feel better. 



...

Around the Network

Student Debt Relief Impacts Joe Biden’s Numbers, implementing popular social programs makes you popular...

It's good Dems are finally getting to see the positive pollical effects of supporting socially supportive policies, something they haven't quite understood as an organisation in the past



Bandorr said:
ConservagameR said:
TallSilhouette said:

Talk about a mask off moment...

Wow. This reminds a lot me of something. History does really repeat itself.

Me : They should get out while the getting is good in that case.

You : You mean... they should kill everyone? OMG!

Me: Wait what? No. Are we even having the same conversation?

Cathy is a gem btw. 

So explain your comment. What does "If they don't take the House, and by a comfy margin, then the more conservative (red) states would be absolute morons to remain in the union at that point. " mean?

The phrase "remain in the union" leaves very few options.

You said something vague. People acted on that vagueness. Then you respond that they were wrong. But you again were vague. You've yet to explain or clear up that statement.

Torillian said:
ConservagameR said:
TallSilhouette said:

Talk about a mask off moment...

Wow. This reminds a lot me of something. History does really repeat itself.

Me : They should get out while the getting is good in that case.

You : You mean... they should kill everyone? OMG!

Me: Wait what? No. Are we even having the same conversation?

Cathy is a gem btw. 

Are you honestly taking issue with me equating calling for some states to try to leave the union with a civil war? You do remember the last time some states tried this don't you?

Let's stop being pedantic and just explain what the hell has happened lately that you think some states should "divorce" then if that terminology makes you feel better. 

You're not happy with the vagueness of leaving? Since when did leaving mean killing whoever else you were with? Is that how divorce typically works?

If you took issue with the apparent vagueness of leaving, how do you think I took getting a response that only implies I think a lot of people should die?

Assuming civil war automatically, makes no sense basing it solely on the past. If someone said a world war would start tomorrow, would you assume they meant it would be fought with muskets since that's how it was done in the past, or is it the year 2022?

As for why, for starters, unification goal, deplorable semi-fascists rhetoric, covid mismanagement, killed fuel sources, record gas prices, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Russia(gate)bait, inflation, disregard for border state immigration, attention to northern urban immigration, etc. The list goes on.

Staying together for the kids is one thing if done in a useful enough manner, but staying together because one person doesn't seem to be ok with letting go is another much bigger problem. That tends to mean an abusive relationship, which nobody should be subject to, who doesn't want to. If the person wanting to leave is a fascist, supremacist, racist, etc, who shouldn't ever be given a platform, why the cling and not good riddance?



I believe that ConservagameR you probably should read up on what it takes for any state to secede from the US. Unless a state just totally ignores the federal government and the constitution, there is no means to do so which would mean they have to force their way out. So yes you are pretty much talking about civil war in order for something like that to happen because it would not be some peaceful transition where the US would just up and say, "GO Ahead".

Second of all your points about all the things you feel is wrong with the current government really does not mean anything. America has been through this for countless decades where one side believe the other is doing a bad job. If that was the case, red or blue states would have picked up their marbles a long time ago. If the GOP cannot win the house and Senate then they have themselves to blame. If the Dems cannot keep the house and Senate, they have themselves to blame.



Also worth noting that every state has some Federal land in it (including the majority of the land west of Texas), so secession either means a real awkward relationship with this Federal land, or the state attempting to steal this land. 



Around the Network
the-pi-guy said:
ConservagameR said:

You're not happy with the vagueness of leaving? Since when did leaving mean killing whoever else you were with? Is that how divorce typically works?

If you took issue with the apparent vagueness of leaving, how do you think I took getting a response that only implies I think a lot of people should die?

Assuming civil war automatically, makes no sense basing it solely on the past. If someone said a world war would start tomorrow, would you assume they meant it would be fought with muskets since that's how it was done in the past, or is it the year 2022?

As for why, for starters, unification goal, deplorable semi-fascists rhetoric, covid mismanagement, killed fuel sources, record gas prices, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Russia(gate)bait, inflation, disregard for border state immigration, attention to northern urban immigration, etc. The list goes on.

Staying together for the kids is one thing if done in a useful enough manner, but staying together because one person doesn't seem to be ok with letting go is another much bigger problem. That tends to mean an abusive relationship, which nobody should be subject to, who doesn't want to. If the person wanting to leave is a fascist, supremacist, racist, etc, who shouldn't ever be given a platform, why the cling and not good riddance?

Because the peaceful ways to secede require most of the country to approve, which isn't going to happen. 

Most of your list makes no sense. Gas prices aren't set by the government. Inflation is currently a global issue right now. 

A fundamental issue with your rhetoric is that the "red" states aren't as red as you seem to be imagining. The biggest states, Florida and Texas are pretty close to 50/50 Republican Democrat. Even a vote would require basically every single Republican to want to leave, which is incredibly unlikely. 

Bandorr said:
ConservagameR said:

You're not happy with the vagueness of leaving? Since when did leaving mean killing whoever else you were with? Is that how divorce typically works?

If you took issue with the apparent vagueness of leaving, how do you think I took getting a response that only implies I think a lot of people should die?

Assuming civil war automatically, makes no sense basing it solely on the past. If someone said a world war would start tomorrow, would you assume they meant it would be fought with muskets since that's how it was done in the past, or is it the year 2022?

As for why, for starters, unification goal, deplorable semi-fascists rhetoric, covid mismanagement, killed fuel sources, record gas prices, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Russia(gate)bait, inflation, disregard for border state immigration, attention to northern urban immigration, etc. The list goes on.

Staying together for the kids is one thing if done in a useful enough manner, but staying together because one person doesn't seem to be ok with letting go is another much bigger problem. That tends to mean an abusive relationship, which nobody should be subject to, who doesn't want to. If the person wanting to leave is a fascist, supremacist, racist, etc, who shouldn't ever be given a platform, why the cling and not good riddance?

Try again. You didn't answer the question. I'm not one for people avoiding or trying to find an end around my questions. So I'd like to give you another chance.

The states don't have the right to leave. So attempting to secede would lead to civil war. So let's drop the crap about "why are you assuming that". Because it would happen.

So I'm asking what you're advocating for. It sounds like the fairy tail of "the states seceding.. but ignoring a civil war". Which sounds like an interesting discussion. So let me ask you this - if the states were allowed to secede - what would happen?

Everything federal? Gone. The states like Kentucky that take in more federal money than give out - all that money is gone.  The medicaid, medicare, social security, and insurance that certain people seem to hate... yet still depend on - gone.

Border patrol? Congrats you are now a foreign country surrounded on all sides.  Infrastructure like highways? Yep that belongs to the country you just abandoned.

And what states do you think would follow this? Is Texas (one of the few red states that can hold its own) is going to want to subsidize the small states? Do you think the billionaires will want to take their money out of their banks and stock markets to.. no where?

All the massive relief aid they get from hurricane and tornadoes? Gone.  The police that are so loved - gone. Jobs? gone - because you are now part of a foreign country.

So convince me there is a strategy here, and not just you threatening people with the concept of civil war only to then pretend you're not called out on it.

Machiavellian said:

I believe that ConservagameR you probably should read up on what it takes for any state to secede from the US. Unless a state just totally ignores the federal government and the constitution, there is no means to do so which would mean they have to force their way out. So yes you are pretty much talking about civil war in order for something like that to happen because it would not be some peaceful transition where the US would just up and say, "GO Ahead".

Second of all your points about all the things you feel is wrong with the current government really does not mean anything. America has been through this for countless decades where one side believe the other is doing a bad job. If that was the case, red or blue states would have picked up their marbles a long time ago. If the GOP cannot win the house and Senate then they have themselves to blame. If the Dems cannot keep the house and Senate, they have themselves to blame.

Bandorr said:
sundin13 said:

Also worth noting that every state has some Federal land in it (including the majority of the land west of Texas), so secession either means a real awkward relationship with this Federal land, or the state attempting to steal this land. 

This would be part of the "fantasy". That for some reason these people would be given free land.  Like we went to war and killed massive amount of people to take this land.. but sure you can have it free of charge.

And what happens to loans and taxes etc.  Student? Real estate? House? Car?  You are owing money to the bank of a foreign country.

Texas can leave if it decides to. It was part of the deal when they joined, and was very forward thinking of them. Some of the other States wanted that out but didn't have the leverage that Texas had. For those asking about how to divvy everything up, how would that work out for Texas, since it would have to work out? If it can be worked out with Texas, why not others, and most efficiently, why not at the same time? They're full of the most terrible people aren't they?

Not set but they do intersect. It's not a coincidence why fuel was much lower under the prior administration. Biden's admin also said there was nothing they could do about gas prices, then days later made moves to help lower them and bragged about it, which they keep bragging about. Don't State governments set minimum gas prices? I remember reading a recent story where this was a competitive issue in a few states where some gas stations were charging too little.

I didn't mention Texas or Florida prior, since Texas isn't as red as it used to be, though still leans much more right, and Florida has been purple for a while now, so why did you assume that? It couldn't have been because Texas can leave, because you heavily implied nobody can.

Texas has the right to leave.

Are you saying the Constitution is set in stone and isn't an outdated document that can and should be updated? The conservatives believe that much more so. There's other political factions who want to make a lot of changes or additions since it's built on things like racism, etc.

They would sit down and work things out. Easier said than done, but in divorce the wife is probably going to take half right? So what's wrong with that? If she takes the house in the deal, you're out, find a new place, or is that not acceptable? Isn't what yours mine, and mine yours? It'll take some time like it always does, but there's no point in trying to stop the leaver from leaving at that point is there? What might need to be done to fix things, and are they willing to do that?

Whatever States that left would likely have to join and make their own country, so you would end up with at least two countries when all was said and done. Texas would have to go along with it, because others almost certainly won't leave without Texas, and if Texas went on it's own and left them stuck where they are, they'd be quite upset with Texas. It would be smarter for Texas to bring them along. Business problems for some of those other States could be much more easily solved that way as well so the discrepancy between them and Texas wouldn't be as vast going forward.

The US right now is surrounded on all sides. California would still need to worry about the southern border, and possibly Arizona depending on what they decided. I'm willing to bet Texas southern border guards are probably mostly from the general area. It's also not like the new nation wouldn't be able to hire more guards for the northern regions, but the hope would be that it's much more like the Canadian border. Why wouldn't it be?

One of the major NY stock exchanges moved to Texas already I believe, and they're working to bring more to Texas. Many businesses have or are working towards moving to Texas. Tesla moved there instead of California for good reason. They're clearly setting things up so they can leave if they want, and if they stay, they'll be plenty diverse shortly.

You really think when sections of countries break off they don't think ahead and just fall apart? How does Ukraine even exist then?

Convince you there's a strategy? I simply said that's what they should do in that situation. You're acting like it's some evil century long plan being sprung any day now. Maybe someone here needs to walk us all through climate change recovery step by step, otherwise we all agree it's just a devious threatening concept?

The US and many nations have been through this before, yes. Since when is the thought process by progressive individuals to simply hold the line without budging? Isn't that the conservative thought process? Isn't that going backwards?

Btw, how did this get from Trump going to jail, to this? What happened to that?



Bandorr said:
sundin13 said:

Also worth noting that every state has some Federal land in it (including the majority of the land west of Texas), so secession either means a real awkward relationship with this Federal land, or the state attempting to steal this land. 

This would be part of the "fantasy". That for some reason these people would be given free land.  Like we went to war and killed massive amount of people to take this land.. but sure you can have it free of charge.

And what happens to loans and taxes etc.  Student? Real estate? House? Car?  You are owing money to the bank of a foreign country.

What fantasy do you live in.  This wasn't free land.  This was land set aside to not be developed into industry.  Yet the exact opposite has happened under multiple republican leaderships unlike the one Theodore Roosevelt set out to accomplish.   What the fuck are your points?  There was a saying back in day that you can set aside land but still accomplish economy.   You know what for all these city folks they still want to connect to nature and by God they deserve the usa human right to stand  to a bison and then be gouged by them.

You are full of shit and you know it. . You are like that dumb Utah Mormon that didn't recognize the usa federal lands and grazed cattle on it for free denouncing the federal government while you go horseback riding waving a USA flag.

Yea you might as well be a fucking Mormon.

Last edited by sethnintendo - on 03 September 2022

ConservagameR said:
the-pi-guy said:

Because the peaceful ways to secede require most of the country to approve, which isn't going to happen. 

Most of your list makes no sense. Gas prices aren't set by the government. Inflation is currently a global issue right now. 

A fundamental issue with your rhetoric is that the "red" states aren't as red as you seem to be imagining. The biggest states, Florida and Texas are pretty close to 50/50 Republican Democrat. Even a vote would require basically every single Republican to want to leave, which is incredibly unlikely. 

Bandorr said:

Try again. You didn't answer the question. I'm not one for people avoiding or trying to find an end around my questions. So I'd like to give you another chance.

The states don't have the right to leave. So attempting to secede would lead to civil war. So let's drop the crap about "why are you assuming that". Because it would happen.

So I'm asking what you're advocating for. It sounds like the fairy tail of "the states seceding.. but ignoring a civil war". Which sounds like an interesting discussion. So let me ask you this - if the states were allowed to secede - what would happen?

Everything federal? Gone. The states like Kentucky that take in more federal money than give out - all that money is gone.  The medicaid, medicare, social security, and insurance that certain people seem to hate... yet still depend on - gone.

Border patrol? Congrats you are now a foreign country surrounded on all sides.  Infrastructure like highways? Yep that belongs to the country you just abandoned.

And what states do you think would follow this? Is Texas (one of the few red states that can hold its own) is going to want to subsidize the small states? Do you think the billionaires will want to take their money out of their banks and stock markets to.. no where?

All the massive relief aid they get from hurricane and tornadoes? Gone.  The police that are so loved - gone. Jobs? gone - because you are now part of a foreign country.

So convince me there is a strategy here, and not just you threatening people with the concept of civil war only to then pretend you're not called out on it.

Machiavellian said:

I believe that ConservagameR you probably should read up on what it takes for any state to secede from the US. Unless a state just totally ignores the federal government and the constitution, there is no means to do so which would mean they have to force their way out. So yes you are pretty much talking about civil war in order for something like that to happen because it would not be some peaceful transition where the US would just up and say, "GO Ahead".

Second of all your points about all the things you feel is wrong with the current government really does not mean anything. America has been through this for countless decades where one side believe the other is doing a bad job. If that was the case, red or blue states would have picked up their marbles a long time ago. If the GOP cannot win the house and Senate then they have themselves to blame. If the Dems cannot keep the house and Senate, they have themselves to blame.

Bandorr said:

This would be part of the "fantasy". That for some reason these people would be given free land.  Like we went to war and killed massive amount of people to take this land.. but sure you can have it free of charge.

And what happens to loans and taxes etc.  Student? Real estate? House? Car?  You are owing money to the bank of a foreign country.

Texas can leave if it decides to. It was part of the deal when they joined, and was very forward thinking of them. Some of the other States wanted that out but didn't have the leverage that Texas had. For those asking about how to divvy everything up, how would that work out for Texas, since it would have to work out? If it can be worked out with Texas, why not others, and most efficiently, why not at the same time? They're full of the most terrible people aren't they?

Not set but they do intersect. It's not a coincidence why fuel was much lower under the prior administration. Biden's admin also said there was nothing they could do about gas prices, then days later made moves to help lower them and bragged about it, which they keep bragging about. Don't State governments set minimum gas prices? I remember reading a recent story where this was a competitive issue in a few states where some gas stations were charging too little.

I didn't mention Texas or Florida prior, since Texas isn't as red as it used to be, though still leans much more right, and Florida has been purple for a while now, so why did you assume that? It couldn't have been because Texas can leave, because you heavily implied nobody can.

Texas has the right to leave.

Are you saying the Constitution is set in stone and isn't an outdated document that can and should be updated? The conservatives believe that much more so. There's other political factions who want to make a lot of changes or additions since it's built on things like racism, etc.

They would sit down and work things out. Easier said than done, but in divorce the wife is probably going to take half right? So what's wrong with that? If she takes the house in the deal, you're out, find a new place, or is that not acceptable? Isn't what yours mine, and mine yours? It'll take some time like it always does, but there's no point in trying to stop the leaver from leaving at that point is there? What might need to be done to fix things, and are they willing to do that?

Whatever States that left would likely have to join and make their own country, so you would end up with at least two countries when all was said and done. Texas would have to go along with it, because others almost certainly won't leave without Texas, and if Texas went on it's own and left them stuck where they are, they'd be quite upset with Texas. It would be smarter for Texas to bring them along. Business problems for some of those other States could be much more easily solved that way as well so the discrepancy between them and Texas wouldn't be as vast going forward.

The US right now is surrounded on all sides. California would still need to worry about the southern border, and possibly Arizona depending on what they decided. I'm willing to bet Texas southern border guards are probably mostly from the general area. It's also not like the new nation wouldn't be able to hire more guards for the northern regions, but the hope would be that it's much more like the Canadian border. Why wouldn't it be?

One of the major NY stock exchanges moved to Texas already I believe, and they're working to bring more to Texas. Many businesses have or are working towards moving to Texas. Tesla moved there instead of California for good reason. They're clearly setting things up so they can leave if they want, and if they stay, they'll be plenty diverse shortly.

You really think when sections of countries break off they don't think ahead and just fall apart? How does Ukraine even exist then?

Convince you there's a strategy? I simply said that's what they should do in that situation. You're acting like it's some evil century long plan being sprung any day now. Maybe someone here needs to walk us all through climate change recovery step by step, otherwise we all agree it's just a devious threatening concept?

The US and many nations have been through this before, yes. Since when is the thought process by progressive individuals to simply hold the line without budging? Isn't that the conservative thought process? Isn't that going backwards?

Btw, how did this get from Trump going to jail, to this? What happened to that?

Texas cannot simply leave like that.

They used up that right when they seceded during the civil war to join the Confederates. Now to secede any state would need the unanimous approval of all the other states plus DC, and you probably know yourself that this won't ever happen.



Bandorr said:
ConservagameR said:

Texas can leave if it decides to. It was part of the deal when they joined, and was very forward thinking of them. Some of the other States wanted that out but didn't have the leverage that Texas had. For those asking about how to divvy everything up, how would that work out for Texas, since it would have to work out? If it can be worked out with Texas, why not others, and most efficiently, why not at the same time? They're full of the most terrible people aren't they?

Not set but they do intersect. It's not a coincidence why fuel was much lower under the prior administration. Biden's admin also said there was nothing they could do about gas prices, then days later made moves to help lower them and bragged about it, which they keep bragging about. Don't State governments set minimum gas prices? I remember reading a recent story where this was a competitive issue in a few states where some gas stations were charging too little.

I didn't mention Texas or Florida prior, since Texas isn't as red as it used to be, though still leans much more right, and Florida has been purple for a while now, so why did you assume that? It couldn't have been because Texas can leave, because you heavily implied nobody can.

Texas has the right to leave.

Are you saying the Constitution is set in stone and isn't an outdated document that can and should be updated? The conservatives believe that much more so. There's other political factions who want to make a lot of changes or additions since it's built on things like racism, etc.

They would sit down and work things out. Easier said than done, but in divorce the wife is probably going to take half right? So what's wrong with that? If she takes the house in the deal, you're out, find a new place, or is that not acceptable? Isn't what yours mine, and mine yours? It'll take some time like it always does, but there's no point in trying to stop the leaver from leaving at that point is there? What might need to be done to fix things, and are they willing to do that?

Whatever States that left would likely have to join and make their own country, so you would end up with at least two countries when all was said and done. Texas would have to go along with it, because others almost certainly won't leave without Texas, and if Texas went on it's own and left them stuck where they are, they'd be quite upset with Texas. It would be smarter for Texas to bring them along. Business problems for some of those other States could be much more easily solved that way as well so the discrepancy between them and Texas wouldn't be as vast going forward.

The US right now is surrounded on all sides. California would still need to worry about the southern border, and possibly Arizona depending on what they decided. I'm willing to bet Texas southern border guards are probably mostly from the general area. It's also not like the new nation wouldn't be able to hire more guards for the northern regions, but the hope would be that it's much more like the Canadian border. Why wouldn't it be?

One of the major NY stock exchanges moved to Texas already I believe, and they're working to bring more to Texas. Many businesses have or are working towards moving to Texas. Tesla moved there instead of California for good reason. They're clearly setting things up so they can leave if they want, and if they stay, they'll be plenty diverse shortly.

You really think when sections of countries break off they don't think ahead and just fall apart? How does Ukraine even exist then?

Convince you there's a strategy? I simply said that's what they should do in that situation. You're acting like it's some evil century long plan being sprung any day now. Maybe someone here needs to walk us all through climate change recovery step by step, otherwise we all agree it's just a devious threatening concept?

The US and many nations have been through this before, yes. Since when is the thought process by progressive individuals to simply hold the line without budging? Isn't that the conservative thought process? Isn't that going backwards?

Btw, how did this get from Trump going to jail, to this? What happened to that?

Texas doesn't have the right to leave. That's a myth.  Even a basic level of googling will find that for you.  It is one of those things you hear from someone in a history class once and just go "neat, but pointless".

I could link more but basically ever source just points to the supreme court saying "uh no".

It would also be a disaster.  Their energy grid is a disaster. That's been proven multiple times.  All that money from disaster relief? Gone.  Fear of border control? Congrats you not only have to do your own border control for mexico - but now you are surrounded on all sides.

Also "They would sit down and work things out" with what leverage? I've already given you the MASSIVE FANTASY that the states would be allowed to secede without a civil war.  So what leverage does Kentucky bring?

"Btw, how did this get from Trump going to jail, to this? What happened to that?"

"If they don't take the House, and by a comfy margin, then the more conservative (red) states would be absolute morons to remain in the union at that point. "

You said that. I called you out on that. Multiple people called you out on that. You then tried to ignore it. So I called it out on it again.  At no point did I mention trump. I directly responded to that line, and only that line.

But glad you aren't talking about civil war. You just believe in myths, and the fantasy that smaller states would bully Texas into seceding and they would just "divorce" the united states taking 50% of whatever they want and have no concerns.. like say having no rules, no laws, no structure of any kind.

But at long as you aren't calling for people to kill each other I'm fine.

So there's no chance of any red states leaving. Period. Then why would you or anyone else, who has, take it further to, well if they did leave they'd be screwed anyway cause they suck so it's better they don't. Sounds to me like there's a good chance they could leave, and you don't want them to.

Multiple times now Biden has mentioned there's no point in civil war cause he'll air bomb them to death. The media is constantly talking about civil war, almost as if they and Biden want it to happen. Is it the blue states that wouldn't let the red states leave peacefully? Starting to seem that way.

The Texas grid is a disaster? A total disaster? Everyone else's grid is tip top perfect condition. No (big) problems ever? That's laughable.

California Declares Grid Emergency, Warning of Blackouts - Bloomberg

California power officials put out a plea: Shut it down at 4 p.m. to protect the grid (yahoo.com)

You mean the money from the federal purse that partially comes from the red states? Plus it's not like if they started their own country that they wouldn't be able to get money for reasons like disaster relief from their new federal government just like how the old one worked. 

Surrounded by all sides would be a problem? You're saying people in blue states would be flocking to red states? Why would that be I wonder?

The leverage they would bring together, since I said it would be done together, is we deal like civilized adults, or we simply keep everything we have now period. Which would mean DC would either agree to deal or have to threaten civil war. It would be the blue side asking for war, not the red.

Trump point wasn't for you and that was obvious based on how I laid things out, as well as what has been said prior. Who it was for, coincidentally, didn't respond to it. What have you said about not responding? Maybe you should get on their case and make sure they stop ignoring since that's so important. At least I didn't accuse them of being out for blood, which would be a reasonable reason to ignore.

Many people had a fantasy in 2016, no chance, impossible, and yet somehow, someway, it came to pass. You could say the opposite happened in 2020 depending on your point of view. I said clearly they would work things out like adults. You're the one saying they can't leave period and the government would rather kill them all before let them go. What does that say about who's in government and their voters? 

Btw, here's a somewhat recent article about Calexit. California, the bluest state wants or wanted to succeed recently. Any thoughts?

Calexit plan to divorce California from US is getting a second chance (cnbc.com)

I'm all about peace, but seems like certain others are for war before peace. I guess words and actions aren't always the same are they?



the-pi-guy said:
ConservagameR said:

Texas can leave if it decides to. It was part of the deal when they joined, and was very forward thinking of them. Some of the other States wanted that out but didn't have the leverage that Texas had. For those asking about how to divvy everything up, how would that work out for Texas, since it would have to work out? If it can be worked out with Texas, why not others, and most efficiently, why not at the same time? They're full of the most terrible people aren't they?

I didn't mention Texas or Florida prior, since Texas isn't as red as it used to be, though still leans much more right, and Florida has been purple for a while now, so why did you assume that? It couldn't have been because Texas can leave, because you heavily implied nobody can.

Texas has the right to leave.

Bandorr covered it, but in short, the Supreme Court says otherwise. 

Which maybe doesn't say much currently, but even the conservative justices do not seem to be interested in overturning that precedent. And frankly why would they, considering it would make it much harder to control the US, unless they all wanted to live in Texas.

ConservagameR said:

Not set but they do intersect. It's not a coincidence why fuel was much lower under the prior administration. Biden's admin also said there was nothing they could do about gas prices, then days later made moves to help lower them and bragged about it, which they keep bragging about. Don't State governments set minimum gas prices? I remember reading a recent story where this was a competitive issue in a few states where some gas stations were charging too little.

It is a coincidence. It was largely driven by the pandemic.

Sure there is some relation. The government can set policies that drive up or down demand, they can possibly pressure production. But they don't have a lot of power to do that, and it's largely affected indirectly.

There are tons of factors that affect oil prices. For example, whether we are able to import oil from other places where it's produced cheaper, how much people abroad are using oil, how much people here are using oil (all of that sets the global demand, which affects getting oil from other places where it's cheaper).

A big factor that affects oil prices is the ability to refine the oil. Which has seen a big hit during the last year of Trump's presidency and the first year of Biden's presidency. Several big oil refineries closed during that time. Nothing to do with Biden's policies. 

ConservagameR said:

Are you saying the Constitution is set in stone and isn't an outdated document that can and should be updated? The conservatives believe that much more so. There's other political factions who want to make a lot of changes or additions since it's built on things like racism, etc.

No, the Constitution is not set in stone, but most of these people don't have the incentive to support those changes. Red states in particular are supported by blue states. 

ConservagameR said:

One of the major NY stock exchanges moved to Texas already I believe, and they're working to bring more to Texas. Many businesses have or are working towards moving to Texas. Tesla moved there instead of California for good reason. They're clearly setting things up so they can leave if they want, and if they stay, they'll be plenty diverse shortly.

You really think when sections of countries break off they don't think ahead and just fall apart? How does Ukraine even exist then?

Convince you there's a strategy? I simply said that's what they should do in that situation. You're acting like it's some evil century long plan being sprung any day now. Maybe someone here needs to walk us all through climate change recovery step by step, otherwise we all agree it's just a devious threatening concept?

The US and many nations have been through this before, yes. Since when is the thought process by progressive individuals to simply hold the line without budging? Isn't that the conservative thought process? Isn't that going backwards?

You seem to implying that Texas is intentionally trying to set themselves up? 

If I move to Texas on my own free will, is that happening because Texas is secretly a master negotiator? 

Being a progressive doesn't mean change for change's sake. 

And again, none of these red states are uniformly Republican. They have pockets of blue cities. 

A lot of families are between people that are Republican and Democrat. Often times a Republican husband and a Democratic wife. 

I already replied to Bandorr so I'll cover the rest here.

Not Biden tossing Trumps existing and future moves to keep national oil production strong and high, along with future plans to extend that so energy prices would stay low? I don't remember Trump begging OPEC since he didn't have to due to his energy accomplishments. Though yes, not allowing people to go to work, then basically forcing those who were working to take medical treatment or be laid off or fired, heavily disrupting supply chains, and causing businesses and people to suffer to the point some ended and died because of this. Most of this happened after the child dictator was defeated so the adults could fix everything. What happened?

If I were a betting man, yes, I do think Texas is setting themselves up to leave if they wish to. Now if they don't, it's just more leverage to hold over the federal government as they grow and diversify. It also would give them some more influence over the country as a whole. It's a smart move all around.

If you move to Texas, it could be because you had to and had no choice, but it's far more likely it's because there is good reason to. I've seen others say that people don't have the time or money to just get up and move and they shouldn't have to just because somewhere else is better than where they are now. Plus Texas is full of a lot of terrible people supposedly. That alone should keep any good person away shouldn't it?

Americans leave and go elsewhere. Others immigrate into America. Very different political backgrounds, very different political countries. Yet it works for the most part, somehow. Coming or going isn't a problem in the grand scheme of things because of some internal diversity.