Bandorr said:
ConservagameR said:
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?
|
- 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.
- In correct I want the states to do that. The states like Kentucky that take IN more federal money than give out would stop draining the system. More money for me.
- All the red states gone mean the United states would be Democratic. It would be lead by laws and not the church.
- Is it the blue states that wouldn't let the red states leave peacefully
- The Trumpians are the one talking about Civil war. Hell you tried to imply it before you got called out on it. The last times states tried to secede - THEY CAUSED A CIVIL WAR. So the assumption that if they left it would happen again is 100% on the ones wanting to secede
- 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.
- Your what aboutism bores me. Everyone other state is connected to the FEDERAL power grid. The texas one isn't. So when it fails (and it has - hello winter) that is brutal.
- 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?
- You seem very confused by surrounded. Last time you said the US was surrounded. It means that for example with Kentucky EVERY PART OF IT is surrounded by another state.
- Which would mean DC would either agree to deal or have to threaten civil war.
- Oh hey look its you threatening civil war AGAIN. "Agree to our demands or civil war". That isn't leverage. That is threatening civil war.
You are just bad at this. You "hint" at civil war. You get called out on it. You hide it. You complain that people point it out. AND THEN YOU DO IT AGAIN.
Texas can't secede. The other states can't secede. The only leverage you suggested is "do it, or else". With the or else being civil war.
You don't talk about the down sides. You just throw around whataboutism, random crap about biden, and more civil war.
|
1. a) Isn't California the 5th biggest GDP worldwide on it's own? Are they not required to share with the rest of the nation? How do they feel?
b) Good to know you wouldn't stand in the way and would allow it to happen. That's very civilized of you. Best to watch from across the border as the church goers go through hell trying to get along with each other. Just think, they'll all be carrying guns as well. Instant disaster.
2. MAGA protested on Jan 6, and a tiny handful went full retard, and the Democrats and media have painted all conservatives as wanting to overthrow the government since with no signs of it. Just because the overwhelming majority of them wanted yet another investigation by the party who loves to investigate, who was told that this time everything was completely perfect and to shut up. You can't deny that refusing to investigate looks terribly suspicious if there's nothing to hide. That doesn't mean there was fraud or anything sour, but why not another investigation? It's become the new norm so it's not hard to see why they're asking for it and upset it didn't take place.
Again, the last time something happened doesn't mean the same will automatically happen this time. More so, it's not like last time was recent. If America really is so much better and so much more civilized now, that's every reason to believe things should be much different, in a peaceful manner.
In your most recent response, you implied you understood I didn't mean civil war, which is what I explained since I never said that to begin with, and now you're also accusing me of threatening civil war? Are you telling me anyone who said the UK should leave the EU due to Brexit actually wanted war?
3. Well when the separate Texas grid fails, they'll be in good company with interconnected California grid and everyone else who's freezing in the winter or boiling in the summer. It doesn't exactly get super cold down there anyway compared to the north of the country, but no power is no power any way you slice it.
4. Kentucky would leave by itself? It would be surround completely by blue states?? Even if that somehow was the situation, I also said there would be civilized deals made. It's not like you would have to take every state as it exists and make do. You give somewhere to get something else, like land for example. Though it would depend on how the federal government dealt with it. If they wanted to stop it by all means necessary, then they certainly could politically, but then they would be knowingly be taking a war stance at that point, and they wouldn't want that would they?
5. I never said that, you did. I said they should leave in that case. That's it. You and others said they cant and wouldn't be allowed to. There's always the chance that they tried to leave peacefully and when threatened by the federal government with war, they back down and remain in the union, but nowhere did I suggest they would want civil war. You've quickly flipped oddly, and assumed that now, even though I've explained clearly that's not the case.
Odds are if the more conservative red states wanted out, and knew for certain they wouldn't be allowed to politically, then they wouldn't bother with politics and would just go straight to war. That's not what I suggested would be the case though. I suggested they would assume goodwill from the federal government and would sit and work things out peacefully. You seem to think the federal government would react in a more hostile manner.
Trying to put words in my mouth doesn't change what I said and meant as had been explained. Is divorce sometimes for the best or is it always violence? Is there something wrong with peace and civility?