While this is clearly a shit show, I can't help but laugh. These documents are so declassified and minor that Trump is doing everything in his power to prevent the FBI from looking at them. 

His entire public argument makes no sense and constantly contradicts itself, while his legal teams argument is relying heavily on favors from Trump appointed judges to not get laughed out of the courtroom.

You don't bother responding to those because it's fantasy and a waste of time, but you responded to me multiple times about the same things?

I'm the only one saying the states should leave? What about everyone else who's been behind those movements?

You notice how I mentioned Calexit multiple times and everyone ignored it. Then only after I point out everyone is ignoring it, then they try to defend it? Why wasn't my point just ignored then if it's so ridiculous? Or why wasn't Calexit taken as serious, especially since I also pointed it out with everything else?

It's all bad idea's until someone on the other side had the same idea on that point being discussed, sometimes prior. Unless what the other side did goes along with the idea, because then it's a positive addition to the point, not sealioning or smoke screening anymore, oddly.

How many zip ties and guns, and how many insurrectionists or protestors in total? Estimates are acceptable here.

Hasn't Biden said multiple times now that it's a waste of time to come after the government with guns since they've got fighter jets and tanks?

How's that $60 billion in guns working out for Ukraine against fighter jets and tanks? Ukraine still winning, somehow? 

You're trying to say that the people thought they could vote for something and didn't anticipate everything wouldn't be perfect after? How long ago did the UK people land on Earth, because since the first vote ever, that's been the way it goes. You never get everything, not even close.

So much for democracy.

The EU's response to Brexit (europa.eu)

There's a write up and long but basic timeline. It's clear that the UK couldn't, just leave. There was a lot to it that had to be solved, and both the UK and the EU didn't always see eye to eye and immediately agree to everything.

"We have always deeply regretted the UK’s decision to leave but we have always fully respected it, too.  The agreement we reached is fair for both sides and ensures that millions of EU and UK citizens will continue to have their rights protected in the place they call home."

When the EU President says they deeply regretted it, well you know.

I'm not so sure the country and it's government will allow civil war to be the answer. From what I've lived, and from that others imply, is that America is better than that. Imagine the example it would set for the rest of the world in many ways on the largest and smallest scales.

The Democrats and their voters were saying Trump was illegitimate, do to reasons like the Russia hoax. The dossier was fake and was made up by Hillary's campaign, and even though the Russians did try to influence the election in other ways, there's no evidence they changed anything, just like there's no evidence that Hunter Biden's laptop changed the 2020 election. Whether it did or not, how are we to know for certain now?

The difference is the havoc it caused after 2016, injury, death, destruction, didn't lead to the right saying the left were insurrectionists, even though they could have. That's because it wouldn't have meant anything, just like how it doesn't mean anything to the right as of now, because they agree the handful or idiots who took it to far are getting punished as they should. Maybe to harsh, but punishment was necessary. That handful weren't going to take over the government, because they didn't stand a chance against the rest of the protesters, let alone the rest of the country.

Californian chiming in.

I don't think anyone was ignoring you.  People are spending a lot of energy responding to all of your posts.  I suspect most people aren't really fully aware of the context of calexit, since it was largely a footnote outside of conservative media that made it a big bogeyman.

Calexit was pretty much always a joke.  It never got the requisite signatures to become a ballot measure and many people suspect the whole effort was another Russian conspiracy to destabilize the US.  The leader literally fled to Russia.  Anyone who gave the plan anything beyond a surface level scrutiny would realize how absolutely insane (and illegal) the proposal was.  People were upset over Trump's policies and California over contributing financially to the federal government, so they fancied leaving the US.  But the logistics of water alone should be enough to convince any Californian against leaving the US, constitution aside.

Not just rumor or speculation any more; top secret materials on foreign nuclear capabilities reportedly recovered from Mar-a-Lago:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/09/06/trump-nuclear-documents/

Where did you say this before? Yes I am aware of how this works.

Are you aware the States are right now attempting a convention to do just this? Propose amendments, changes, additions, etc?

First you're not pleased I didn't bring things up yet or go in depth enough, and now when I have you ignore it? Since when has the supreme court not gone back on their previous rulings and changed the outcome?

You know as well as everyone else, even if I had laid this out just as you have above, it's not like the response would've been, gees you've got a point, maybe it could happen. We all know the response would've still been you're delusional. Those delusional Trump believers in 2016 and Biden voters in 2020, depending on your point of view, should all take this at least somewhat seriously. It's not like I would expect everyone to agree with me entirely anyway, but absolutely not, never, seems much more of a personal reaction then one based on the possibility.

So you've got the goods on everyone and will be doxxing them at a later date for different reasons, and that's acceptable?

Yes, you were clear. I didn't realize I was being targeted to be attacked later.

If people are ignoring Calexit for that reason, why aren't they ignoring what I said? It's not happened either since it would be a future event.

The EU's response to Brexit (europa.eu)

Here's another Brexit timeline. The UK couldn't just vote to leave and be gone. There was plenty shared that had to be divvied up and that's an understatement as to how complex that was, and that's just one part of everything that had to be sorted out. How easy did the EU make the transition?

There was a discussion a while back in this forum where it was said that Australia and America were basically the same. The main point behind that was their common ancestry. Others agreed with this point. So how is the EU completely different? America is one country, made up of a bunch of States, who are supposed to have the majority control over themselves, not the federal government. The EU is set up in a similar fashion, just with nation states, and much like America, the EU government was taking too much control, which was part of why the UK wanted out. Sound familiar?

When the UK people voted to leave, did they not think they would get everything they wanted? Others seem to think so. Did they not assume the split would happen very quickly due to a democratic, efficient, thoughtful, and freedom loving EU? Others seem to think so.

The rest of the EU didn't just accept the UK leaving. They deeply regretted it as the EU President said. Which makes sense why it took so long besides everything that had to be done. Lots of deals and new rules had to be made in order for this to occur. Are you saying similar could not happen in the US? The States can't convene to modify the Constitution? Are they not attempting to gather right now?

Ignoring Calexit, until it's brought up again and pointed out it's being ignored. It was being ignored because it wouldn't look good for those taking the other side of that part of the conversation.

You make a good point though. It didn't get to far because it couldn't get passed the requirements in it's case, plain and simple.

What I initially said may never even come to pass being as specific as it was. Even if the first portion came true, then there's no saying the red more conservative states would actually do anything along those lines anyway.

Of everyone who's responded, I can't help but say I'm surprised the Californian has been by far the most reasonable. I think perhaps I need to take this into account and reassess and adjust my thoughts on the state.

It's hilarious to occasionally pop into this thread just to see how things are going becuase it's so clear one side of the argument is just factually wrong about like 95% of the things they say but completely lack the self-awareness to realize that nearly everything they've said is wrong.

Like, I see this:

Person 1 makes 5 outlandish claims

Person 2 and 3 responde to those claims with a point by point breakdown of why those claims are wrong or misinterpreted

Person 1 doubles down on those claims, then makes 2 more while saying that the other people aren't taking them seriously

Person 2 debunks the new 'facts' drawn to reitirate those claims, each with a detailed breakdown on why it's wrong

Person 3 debunks the new claims with similarly detailed explanations and fact-checking

Person 1 makes more outlandish claims, not responding to the debunking of their prior claims while pretending these new claims supercede the old claims so it doesn't matter that the other claims were debunked because THESE claims are SUPER important!

Person 2 then goes on a 4,000 word rant about how person 1 doesn't even remotely understand what the fuck they're talking about, completely misunderstand EVERY facet of what they're talking about, are unable to accept when they're proven wrong, and have so far been unable to present a single solid claim

Person 3 adds extra reasons as to WHY person 1 is wrong, further elaborating on person 1's claims are absurd and completely wrong or ignorant

Person 1 claims persecution and acts like they're the victim in all this despite being the one making all the faulty claims and refusing to back them up with facts.

Person 2 and 3 continue on a cycle of thoroughly debunking everything person 1 says, while person 1 keeps making outrageous, unfounded claims.

=====--=--=====

Sound about right to all of you?

ConservagameR said:

You do know that amendments are proposed to congress on each session, this is nothing new.  The last reported number is 11,770 since 2019.  Out of that number only.  The majority do not even get to the Congressional committees and even fewer get to a vote in the house or senate.  So yes the process is long strict and hard to accomplish. Out of all the amendments that get submitted only 33 made it to the states and only 27 have been approved.

I really do not know if you laid it out what would be the outcome, I only know that you did not do so and by that alone you left it up to everyone else to assume what you meant.  You had plenty of opportunity to go into detail but instead you started to talk about Brexit and other examples that has nothing to do with the legal way to do it in the US.

I am not trying to play oracle here, you made a statement as if seceding from the US is as simple as making some proclamation but there is already a lot of history here and context you did not present.  Anyone can just throw out an opinion but supporting it is something totally different.  You gave no clear examples of exactly how to accomplish the task with an understanding of how the US government works.

The reason why it would be delusional with the current climate is that in order to get an amendment you need 2/3 House and Senate then you need to have it ratified by 38 states.  Its already settled law which would mean there would need to be a good case to overturn it and even if there was an amendment added to the constitution what shape that would take is totally up in the air.  Getting everyone to sign on to it would be historic in its own right.