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? 

Us: States can't just leave, and even if they could it would be a bad idea for them.
You: So you're saying that they can leave.

No

Us: Texas' power grid has a ton of problems.
You: So you're saying that the power grid elsewhere is 100% perfect.

No

Us: These Republican states would also have to find a way to deal with much more border land without the help of the Federal government
You: So you're saying that people from blue states would flock to red states.

No

Us: There is not any means to allow these states to leave the union.
You: So you're threatening civil war.

No

ConservagameR your arguments just do not hold water. As stated there is no path for any state to secede from the US legally or constitutionally. Bandor already provided the links and you can basically do a simple search and find it yourself. Calling the Constitution an outdated document does not prove your point. The constitution is the bedrock for America and there is a process to update that document which are amendments.

So if a state wanted to secede from the US they would need to go through the legal process to obtain it, anything else would be considered treason. In order for a state to secede they would need to get an amendment to the constitution that allows such a thing to happen. Everything you pretty much stated really does not matter, because anything done that is not legally provided by that outdated document will be struck down. Anything less then getting an amendment would be considered treason and would result in civil war. There is no way for Texas to or any other state to secede without going through this process and if they decided to ignore the constitution then they would need to say they do not recognize that document which would also be considered as treason.

You seem like you want to avoid saying the term civil war but that is exactly what you are putting on the table. If no state is willing to do it legally then they would need to force their way out and how exactly is a state going to force their way out of the US. You state they can just do it peacefully but I would love to know how exactly that would happen. There is no peaceful way to force your way out of the US unless and amendment is written to the constitution. The other point you bring that I find interesting is that you state by threatening secession, that Texas could gain more leverage in the US but exactly how is that going to happen. Would they get more Reps or another Senate seat or what. Texas can threaten secession all they want, nobody cares until you actually act and anything short of doing it legally will just force those in power to either do it or shut up.

Wait, conservatives believe the Constitution is outdated and want it modernized?  That's news to everybody in the US. 

This reply here sums it all up nicely.

"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."

Again, are we even having the same conversation?

The most glaring are the Supreme Court points. At least one was honest enough to imply that's not a great argument though. 

Didn't the (conservative leaning) Supreme Court just overturn RVW? Didn't RVW win in the first place due to the Constitution?

I'm not the one who wrote the factual articles about solid blue States like California wanting to succeed, more than just once btw.

I also never said I was Canadian. Where did that come from? Hmm.

What's next? I'm a white billionaire who lives on a yacht and doesn't give to charity?

I take it it's normal for mods to give out user info when they've chosen not to input that info into their profile?

Maybe you could use that IP trick to find and show a few more things:

a) See where I grew up.

b) See if it negates your gotcha moment.

c) See if it was near sealions.

USA on the left of the Atlantic and EU on the right. Both highlighted in supremacist white for accuracy. Minus Brexit.

So you'll be looking up and pointing out everyone who's not from a blue or red state? Who's not conservative or progressive? Who's not a founding father or supreme court justice, etc? So everyone can then take that info and basically disregard that persons opinion? I tend to think diversity leads to better progress most of the time, but I'm just one person, so how could I be sure? Involve others who are different than me?

I also see everyone ignoring California leaving. Why even bother, multiple times, if it's an overreaction and would only lead to war?

What was said about Trump becoming President and the UK leaving? That America and democracy and the UK would start to quickly suffer and then fall shortly after. It's been since 2016 and both are doing just fine. Would be very different the last couple years if covid didn't pop up and race through impacting the world. Further as to the UK leaving, it's not like the EU instantly said fine, go, we don't care. They dragged it on forever to do everything short of war to keep the UK locked in. So when it comes to secession would automatically mean war in the US, my UK example didn't mean the EU would immediately threaten war, because as I also said earlier, I didn't say the American government would immediately threaten war. Others said that would be the case, and since the EU worked things out after a long period of time, why couldn't the US? My point is that's what the more conservative red states would be after, something like Brexit in terms of a deal and a split. The UK did not want violence or war, and it's not impossible for that to have been the case eventually. The UK just wanted to separate as peacefully as possible. If the last 6 years has taught people anything, it should be that, like many words, impossible doesn't mean what it used to.

Things do get hard, when it's assumed you're saying things you're not. Even harder when you clearly explain that's incorrect and what the case actually is and they tell you you're wrong anyway. Hardest yet when you're told you're not you but somebody else to dismiss or unperson you. Reminds me of people jumping to conclusions and calling others Nazi's or Hitler himself. So yes, I have learned something, but I'm not exactly sure how productive it was.

You still have not addressed the points I made.  How exactly are any state going to leave the US, it does not matter if its blue or red.  A group of people stating they want to leave the US does not mean the whole state wants to leave.  It would be different if the whole state voted on it which would be the first step.  From there we are still at the same place I mentioned.  No matter if the state is red or blue if they try to force their way out of the US it would result in Civil War.  So the next step would be to amend the constitution to allow a state to leave and even that is probably going to involve something so hard that its not even worth it.  You can get Congress to vote on it but you need 2/3 of the house and Senate so good luck with that.

There is a legal process to leave the US and its a very difficulty one at that.  The US is nothing close the the EU so why even bring it up.  Even if red states wanted something like Brexit there is no means in the US to do so.  There is no article 50 in the constitution to leave the US and this has already been to the SCOTUS so its a moot point to continue to bring up.  

Also no one is assuming you are saying anything, they are looking at what you are saying, looking at your arguments and making a determination on how that can be accomplish.  You never once talked about amending the constitution to allow this to happen, you never mentioned congress approving this action.  You never stated anything on how it can be accomplish and the steps on it would need to go through, instead you just tossed a bunch of stuff at the wall which is fine but none it was based on how the US actually works.  If you do not even know the basic concept of how it can peacefully be done then do not be mad everyone assumed you are talking about forcing out of the US and there is no peaceful way to FORCE out of the US.  You cannot threaten civil war if you are not willing to go through with it and Civil war would be exactly what you would be going for because the other peaceful methods all involve a very difficult process which no state has even come close to trying to do. That is why you get fringe elements making these claims.

The latest story on Trump and his stealing document issues is that he was able to get a judge to appoint a special master to review the documents taken by the DOJ. What make this situation very interesting is that not allow did she allow the special Master to review attorney client privilliage documents but also executive privilliage documents. I was going to go into a lot about the executive privilliage part but when I think about it, I believe the DOJ is not going to care. At the end of the day, the DOJ case is about NDI documents that are not documents created by Trump in during his presidency. So a special master isn't really going to make a difference as far as that is concerned. I also believe the FBI has already made determination concerning the documents and thus they will continue their investigation. So my bet is that the government will not appeal and will look to get a SM appointed right away to get things moving. They are not concerned about those documents and probably will just give the SM the NDI documents right away so they can get back to working on those and leave the rest to the SM to take their time with.

Another prediction I have is that the DOJ will be ready with a list of SM while the Trump lawyers will ask for an extension.

I personally have always seen these secession trends as little more than fantasy. Every time something happens, a bunch of people yell "We should leave" and then they go about their day reaping all the benefits imparted by the federal government. That is why I don't really see anything worth responding to in regards to Calexit (and also Texas Exit (Texit?)). Why should I care if some people from Cali liked fantasizing for a bit? It isn't going to happen and nobody is going to do anything to actually try and make it happen (because it can't and won't). Further, no one here is advocating for that (that I've seen). You are the only one saying certain states should leave the union.

That is why we are shit talking you. Feel free to fantasize about certain states leaving the union (which is weird given you don't live in them, but you do you), but trying to argue that it can or should happen is ridiculous and warrants being called out as such. Similarly, if someone tries to say Cali can/should leave, it will also be ridiculous, but until that happens, bring Calexit up is just sealioning or smokescreening or some other means of avoiding actually having to defend your bad ideas.