The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Half of America Dismissed with Extreme Prejudice
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

I have a feeling support for the political dissolution we’ve long pushed for just became a lot more popular. It’s obviously not scientific but no TradCon influencer would’ve been caught dead entertaining the idea of separation a year ago:

The Supreme Court rejected Texas’ straightforward suit against four states that chose their electors by means in blatant violation of the Constitution. Article II, Section 1, Clause 2:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: But no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

Neither courts nor governors are constitutionally permitted to determine how electors are appointed. Deadline extensions and ballot mass mailings not approved by the state legislatures are thus unconstitutional.

Texas was effectively dismissed for not having standing to bring the case in a 7-2 decision. The seven included all three of Donald Trump’s appointments to the court. Good thing he went to the mat for Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett. They really came through for him when it counted. Only the black guy and the Med thought middle America deserved to be heard. The court’s WASP told them to go pound sand. The sooner Republican voters realize the people they put in power do not even think their interests should be given a hearing, the better.

If Pennsylvania doesn’t have to play by the rules, why should Texas or any of the other seventeen states that joined it? What are the reasons for half the country to view the federal government as something other than an oppressive occupying force at this point? End the hate, separate.

 
Hide 63 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Texas was effectively dismissed for not having standing to bring the case in a 7-2 decision. The seven included all three of Donald Trump’s appointments to the court. Good thing he went to the mat for Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett. They really came through for him when it counted.

    I guess they didn’t get the memo they were appointees who owed eternal loyalty to Dumb Prole President. And why should anyone be loyal to him? Darren Beattie learned how much loyalty to Trump gets you.

    • Agree: John Achterhof
    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
    @Alexander Turok


    I guess they didn’t get the memo they were appointees who owed eternal loyalty to Dumb Prole President.
     
    Their loyalty is to the US Constitution and the rule of law. When the Pennsylvania Executive Branch went to the Pennsylvania Judicial Branch to alter the law, passed by the Legislative Branch, permitting more mail in voting. The Executive and Judicial Branches usurped the authority of the Legislative Branch on elections, which is clear and unequivocal in the US Constitution.

    Not that I am surprised. Any court that can declare a corporation a person under the Constitution, even though it can´t vote, or declare same sex marriage is what the framers had in mind, even though there were laws prohibiting it before during and after the Constitution was ratified, can´t be expected to do the right thing.
  2. The way this nation is run today, government lying to the people, media publishing government propaganda, courts supporting malfeasance of governance, and sham elections rigged to obtain results mandated by the state, all remind me of descriptions of Soviet Russia behind an iron curtain.

    • Agree: Nodwink
    • Replies: @goldgettin
    @Bill H

    You say "this nation" ? Behind the times much? Travel a lot?

    What about education,globalism,war,pollution/big pharma...etc.

    Of which religious "demon" ization are you?

    Of all the "denoms", $50's are my favorite.

    Last I checked it was "people" staffing these evil entities/institutions

    Good thing we have lots of debt, we can afford governments of peace&love.

  3. Here are three counterarguments:

    “Each State shall appoint, in Such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors,…”
    The federal Constitution does not dictate how and to what extent state legislatures must directly approve of every detail of the statewide election process or appointment of electors, rather than delegate such authority, wholly or in part, to state administrative agencies. Furthermore, if the Michigan legislature thinks that the appointment of its electors is not what it “directed”, it can take action, including appointing its electors in such manner as it directs. That is called “appropriate remedy”.

    In addition, Texas is not entitled to any particular outcome of a presidential election. It is only entitled to casting its own votes in the electoral college. Michigan is not interfering with that. How Michigan handles its elections and electors is the business of Michigan. And that seems to be how the Supreme Court has ruled.

    • Replies: @brabantian
    @NotSoSolid

    Not quite right I think ... under the common law notion of fraud, and because a fraudulent election in one state *does* greatly have an impact on people in other states, the Supreme Court should have taken the case & heard evidence

    Tho it's true state legislators can flat-out pick electors for whatever gangster president they prefer, they can only do so without fraud ... permitting a fraudulent 'election' with a fraudulent 'vote total' gives additional prestige & power to that president if he gets in, and that is direct harm to other states & citizens ... also if congresspeople or senators are fraudulently elected, as they make laws for all

    The US Supreme Court refuses to hear arguments in 99% of all cases presented to it, literally ... but what is very funny - Whilst denying to hear the Trump vote fraud case, the Justices did however this week agree, to hear in detail, an appeal by very-Jewish investment bank Goldman Sachs, which is seeking to evade judgments to pay investors who felt defrauded by Goldman

    Goldman Sachs being accused of fraud is one of those rare cases 'important' for the Supreme Court ... but not the nation's common citizens getting the wrong President through fraud, the Supreme Court ain't got no time to even look at evidence about that
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-11/goldman-sachs-gets-high-court-review-it-sought-on-investor-suits

    Trump still does have legal authority to call the troops in to stay in office ... Under USA federal law 10 US Code §253, the President can "by using militia or armed forces or any means ... suppress in a State any conspiracy ... if any part of people is deprived of a right ... or denied equal protection of laws ..."

    If the Supreme Court is part of the 'conspiracy' Trump can have the military arrest them too ... and many hope Trump will do exactly that

    Replies: @NotSoSolid, @V. K. Ovelund, @FraudOrNot

    , @Jtgw
    @NotSoSolid

    Not to mention that similar administrative changes to election rules were made in states that went for Trump and yet the suit is not seeking to disqualify votes there. I agree the legal argument here is pretty feeble. But then if you reject the legitimacy of the entire government as I do then what matters is that more and more people are also rejecting it; whether they reject it for good or bad reasons is of secondary importance.

  4. All the self-flagellation about separation is very ignorant. It is unworkable for many reasons :

    i) The states are a continuum, with many states more accurately described as Purple, rather than red or blue. Life in a 48% blue state is no different on a day-to-day basis than life in a 52% blue state.
    ii) Splitting the country’s GDP in half would ensure that neither country had a currency that maintained status as the world’s reserve currency. Prosperity would fall 20% in both countries, while China ascends to superpower status as the highest-GDP country.
    iii) The blue-red split is urban-rural, rather than at a state level. Thus, no meaningful split is possible. If the split is at the county level, almost 100% of the food production and natural resources are in the red country.
    iv) Assuming voters migrate to the country of their voting pattern, white democrats know that their country will be just 30% white and 26% black. Thus their proclivity to virtue signal about racism, while ensuring that their neighborhoods and schools have no black people, is not sustainable either fiscally or spatially.
    v) El Chapo could make major inroads into the blue nation.
    vi) White Tr*shionalists are left-wing in economic views, mostly gay, and didn’t back Trump. Normal white Republicans (like me) loathe White Tr*shionalists, and will not allow them into the red nation. How will the WN w*gg*rs avoid eradication in the blue nation? At least they will be in greater proximity to the females of their defective subrace – the fat bluehaired feminists, so that they can mutually torture each other.

    Okay, (vi) is the one good outcome of the split.

    In reality, if most Americans took a quiz about their political leanings that did not name any party, and was worded as to be decoupled from soundbytes, a substantial uniformity of opinion would present itself. The values of people aren’t that different, it is just that the information sources they receive portray entirely different realities.

    In truth, if mainstream America listed the 100 most powerful leftists in America, and then randomly and anonymously started assassinating them, this artificial disunity would rapidly vanish by the 7th or 8th assassination.

    That is an astonishingly low price to pay for the preservation of America. It is on par with when Captain Benjamin Sisko was told by Elim Garak that Sisko had just saved the entire Alpha Quadrant for the “price of one Romulan Senator, one criminal, and the self-respect of one Starfleet Officer”.

    I would call that a bargain.

    • LOL: nokangaroos
    • Replies: @Wyatt
    @Thomm


    That is an astonishingly low price to pay for the preservation of America. It is on par with when Captain Benjamin Sisko was told by Elim Garak that Sisko had just saved the entire Alpha Quadrant for the “price of one Romulan Senator, one criminal, and the self-respect of one Starfleet Officer”.
     
    You are a massive nerd for making that reference, but I won't criticize you for it because I understood it perfectly.
    , @Johnny Smoggins
    @Thomm

    Remember when your country, India, was partitioned to create Pakistan and Bangladesh? Separation can work.

    Replies: @Thomm, @WorkItOut

    , @Ryan Andrews
    @Thomm

    If the proportion of conservatives to left-liberals were exactly the same in every last census block in the country, it would still be worth dividing the place in two, and letting those so inclined move to the country of their choice.

    As it happens however, that is not the case. In fact, red-state America, with the exception of Alaska, is literally a contiguous block. Yet instead of thanking their good fortune at such an opportunity falling into their laps (they certainly didn't do anything to deserve it), conservatives alternate between fraudulently puffing-their-chests about not surrendering all the red counties in blue states and pathetically moaning that blue counties are mixed in with most red states; 'it's all so impractical.' So, in true conservative fashion, they do nothing. If as a conservative, you cannot see that half the country (probably a bit more, really) is utterly and irrevocably lost, and that if you don't act to conserve the other half, that too will be lost within a couple generations, then I don't know what to say. You can lead a horse to water, but if he thinks the strain of craning his neck to take a drink is not worth the effort, then he's not going to make it.

    , @anonymous
    @Thomm

    No one thinks secession will involve half of the country. Just the ones who are independent minded and parts of the deep south. It will be probably be Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Thomm

    i) The states are a continuum, with many states more accurately described as Purple, rather than red or blue. Life in a 48% blue state is no different on a day-to-day basis than life in a 52% blue state.

    Florida tipping red in the 2018 gubernatorial election has made a big difference in day-to-day life, but the general point is well taken.

    Re: ii), that's why I assume a crashing dollar will be the impetus for dissolution.

    Re: iii), politically separate nations need not be hostile to one another. The US and Canada aren't enemies.

    Re: iv), whites in urban areas vote very heavily Democrat now despite often being minorities.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  5. All this talk of balkanization seems ridiculous to me, as an observer. Texas is not a “Red State,” composed almost entirely of hardcore rednecks; California is not composed of transgender activists who love late-term abortion. There is much more homogeneity in the US than most people (esp. Unz readers) are seemingly aware of. Breaking up the USA won’t solve your problems.

    • Replies: @Ultrafart the Brave
    @Nodwink


    All this talk of balkanization seems ridiculous to me, as an observer.
     
    The breakup of the USSR came out of the blue, unprecedented, totally unexpected.
    And yet it happened.

    If it also happens to the USA, it likely won't be a structured democratic choice by the common folk.

    More likely the citizenry will be swept along in an out-of-control political storm, similar to the (first) American civil war, but hopefully not so kinetic this time around.

    One might also observe that the underlying problem for Americans is not the political divide so much as the class divide - the ruling class versus everyone else (though the average Joe probably can't see it).


    Breaking up the USA won’t solve your problems.
     
    The disintegration of the USSR didn't really help their citizens, either - in fact, they almost imploded and ceased to be.

    That sure seemed to solve a lot of problems for some.

    Ditto the USA, if it comes to that. No more Empire of Bases dotted around the world? No more exporting of "freedom & democracy"? No more extraterritorial sanctions & high-seas piracy? No more American billionaires getting richer while the poor get the picture (one can dream)?

    And maybe American citizens could look forward to a bigger piece of the American Pie.

    Or not.

    Replies: @Miro23

  6. @Bill H
    The way this nation is run today, government lying to the people, media publishing government propaganda, courts supporting malfeasance of governance, and sham elections rigged to obtain results mandated by the state, all remind me of descriptions of Soviet Russia behind an iron curtain.

    Replies: @goldgettin

    You say “this nation” ? Behind the times much? Travel a lot?

    What about education,globalism,war,pollution/big pharma…etc.

    Of which religious “demon” ization are you?

    Of all the “denoms”, $50’s are my favorite.

    Last I checked it was “people” staffing these evil entities/institutions

    Good thing we have lots of debt, we can afford governments of peace&love.

  7. The head of the Republican Party of Texas, Allen West, sent out a statement where he floated the idea of secession.

    ‘Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution,’ he said.

    https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2020/12/11/texas-gop-chair-allen-west-suggests-law-abiding-states-form-union-supreme-court-rejects-lawsuit-election-results/

    If it happened, the Union of Constitutional States would probably look something like this:

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Miro23

    Kentucky, Wyoming, and Idaho would all join in. The remaining country would be forever Democrat, so they'd have little choice.

  8. End the hate, separate.

    Way, way too late.
    Maybe in a time and place faraway
    That we are unable to locate

  9. AGREED!

    Big “but” here:

    But contrary to Miro’s map and thousand of others out there, the dividing lines are at the county and even voting precinct level through some big parts of this country. OTOH, we are more mobile now. OTOH, many of us, big landowners, etc., aren’t.

    The last time around, for the most part, it really was The War Between the States. This time, the full meaning of Civil War could be seen. The real problem is not that we couldn’t find some modern practical way to separate and avoid Civil War, with help from software even. The problem is that the left can’t let us go. That is for the same reason that the Communists of the last century couldn’t let countries leave the East Bloc nor let individuals keep leaving E. Berlin for W. Berlin. Wanna’ see a bunch of big, beautiful walls?

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    @Achmed E. Newman

    You should add why they won’t let the producers go.

    We might get civil war in the US, but it will look more like Lebanon than like North and South. That will be indeed hellish.

  10. I’ve said a few times befor in UR that SCOTUS would punt … this comes as no surprise to me.

    SCOTUS can’t invalidate the election results. The most it can do is declare that the states did not follow their own duly passed legislation and punt it to the state legislatures to exercise their Article 2 plenary powers to choose electors. In a USA that follows the Constitution, the only slate that would be counted is that from the legislature, but we are now well into the post-Constitutional USA, and there is precedent from 1876 for competing “certified” slates to be sent up by both the legislatures and state executives. Who knows, maybe we’ll get another Presidential Election Committee, à la the Compromise of 1877, to short circuit the prospect of throwing this into the House for what seems like a certain Trump win.

    https://www.unz.com/article/election-bomb-shell-the-us-constitution-goes-to-court-or/#comment-4312210

    SCOTUS will most likely punt and declare this a matter for state legislatures to handle under their Article 2 plenary powers to choose Electors.

    This was never a matter for the courts, aside from SCOTUS telling lower courts, like PA’s Supreme Court, to stay out of making election law from the bench.

    As usual, Trump curls up in a foetal position under his desk and shrieks, “Oh yeah? We’ll see what a higher court says!”

    Sad.

    https://www.unz.com/tsaker/trumps-last-hurrah/#comment-4306817

  11. @Achmed E. Newman
    AGREED!

    Big "but" here:

    But contrary to Miro's map and thousand of others out there, the dividing lines are at the county and even voting precinct level through some big parts of this country. OTOH, we are more mobile now. OTOH, many of us, big landowners, etc., aren't.

    The last time around, for the most part, it really was The War Between the States. This time, the full meaning of Civil War could be seen. The real problem is not that we couldn't find some modern practical way to separate and avoid Civil War, with help from software even. The problem is that the left can't let us go. That is for the same reason that the Communists of the last century couldn't let countries leave the East Bloc nor let individuals keep leaving E. Berlin for W. Berlin. Wanna' see a bunch of big, beautiful walls?

    Replies: @The Alarmist

    You should add why they won’t let the producers go.

    We might get civil war in the US, but it will look more like Lebanon than like North and South. That will be indeed hellish.

  12. anonymous[173] • Disclaimer says:

    Forget it, Jake it’s Ginatown. The constitution got revoked in ’49 by the Central Intelligence Agency Act.

    Now we can autopsy the latest president who pulled at CIA’s leash. Quite a few have, a little bit. Truman groused but did what he was told and rubberstamped NCS 10/2. Eisenhower thought he could do what he wanted – with Herter, he tried to negotiate comprehensive disarmament, but CIA ratfucked him with a series of provocations culminating in the U-2 flameout, and CIA got what they wanted instead, the New Look. Kennedy came in with a chip on his shoulder from his Dad but, you know, BLAM.

    Then nobody misbehaved till Nixon, who escaped CIA’s bubble and extracted the family jewels but got purged in the Watergate ratfuck. Carter tried to make CIA go by human rights and got purged with the embassy-hostages ratfuck. Then CIA installed their nomenklatura themselves: DCI Bush, Oxford Secret Agent and Mena comprador Clinton, Bush II, spy brat Obama (Reagan was a puppet whose job was to get shot and die for Bush.)

    After that long streak, Trump was the first president CIA didn’t get to install. And now he’s purged too. Why did he fail? Of all the insubordinate presidents, Nixon came closest to getting loose of CIA. Cause he had Schlesinger, who did more to free us in five months that anybody ever did. Trump didn’t have a Schlesinger so he never had a chance. Flynn might have been Trump’s Schlesinger but CIA focal points in justice mobilized to destroy him.

    • Replies: @SaneClownPosse
    @anonymous

    Eisenhower had the Dulles brothers running both State Dept and CIA.
    Eisenhower spent his lifetime inside the MIC beast.
    Iran is a legacy from the Dulles Brothers era.

  13. Texas is in a unique position on two fronts:

    1. The Republic of Texas never signed the (coerced) non-secession agreement to regain admission to the union that the rest of the vanquished Confederate states signed.

    2. Texas is not a part of either the eastern or western power grid, maintaining its own power grid.

    These two points give Texas much more power in matters of secession than just about any other state.

    Go Texas!

    • Thanks: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @follyofwar
    @anarchyst

    I recently read that, in negotiations with the federal government when it was still a free Republic, Texas retained the right to divide into five separate states. So, if the democrats try to make DC and Puerto Rico into two new blue states, Texas should employ the Nuclear Option, and create four more (hopefully) red states. Since the cowardly SC has set a dangerous precedent by dismissing the Texas case without even bothering to hear it, shouldn't it follow that the SC should keep its hands off of that case too, if it ever comes before them?

  14. I wonder whether Italians really commonly think of themselves as “Meds.”

    I always thought that was something that Arabs in Lebanon thought of themselves as. And I can understand why they would want to have their own identity rather than be rolled into the too broad “Arabs.”

    But Italy doesn’t have to go back to the ancient history for all of its glories. Surely, there were major innovations coming out of Italy at least into the 1500s, like star forts and other defenses.

  15. Others have made this point elsewhere, but I think SCOTUS ruled the way they did to protect themselves from Democrats’ packing the court in a fit of angry vengeance for not having ruled “correctly,” i.e. the way the Democrats wanted them to.

    I don’t think secession is in the cards. I left California for Idaho 1-1/2 years ago, and what I’m observing is probably happening in other parts of the country: middle class (mostly white) people are fleeing blue states for places like this. That suggests to me that a soft partitioning is underway, and we’ll end up with people self-sorting into areas where they feel more comfortable, e.g. middle class whites to the mountain west, Hispanics to the southwest, blacks to the south and large cities of the upper midwest, Asians to Seattle and the SFO bay area, etc. etc.

    So maybe the best we can hope for is a sort of self segregation where we all try our best to ignore each other and muddle along. I suppose the problem with that is that I moved here just wanting to be left alone, while leftist busybodies who live hundreds or even thousands of miles away from me can’t stand that idea.

    • Replies: @Pericles
    @Sgt. Joe Friday



    Others have made this point elsewhere, but I think SCOTUS ruled the way they did to protect themselves from Democrats’ packing the court in a fit of angry vengeance for not having ruled “correctly,” i.e. the way the Democrats wanted them to.

     

    It was great that Trump at least got to pick three judges on the Suprem-io Court-io, wasn't it? Strictly speaking, however, they didn't protect themselves against anything, they just cucked and ran like the useless, compromised jackrabbits that they are. (Excepting the black and the med.)

    There will always be a next time to pack that court and that's the only guarantee they now have. Not that I think they would truly mind, since it's for the greater cause of niceness and all.
  16. anonymous[400] • Disclaimer says:

    Judges are just lawyers who played politics as a means of self-promotion. They’re careerists who are into status and comfortable lifestyles so don’t expect any Solomon-like wisdom from them, let alone taking a courageous stance. Perhaps they’re looking out for their own interests. Why tie themselves to the past, Trump, he’s outlived his usefulness, when they’ll be dealing with a new regime which might be grateful to them. Their conservatism is just of the country-club money-bag variety, nothing to do with the majority of citizens.

    • Agree: follyofwar
    • Replies: @Getaclue
    @anonymous

    Nice description of things...--Anyone who has spent any time in Court-- especially Federal Court knows it is a bad joke -- if you are brought in on any "Crime" they will bankrupt you regardless of your "innocence" you will be financially ruined -- they overcharge you with so many "Counts" that even if the Jury decides your Innocent they will "give one" to the Prosecution thinking it will be nothing since you were walked on the other 20 -- they aren't told that one is enough for 20 years --

    Actor Wesley Snipes was walked on all IRS Felonies and the Jury did just this and tossed a Misdemeanor at him only, which they thought would be nothing, the "judge" used it to put him away for 2 years -- this is how it works but people don't know unless they deal with the "system" and most don't -- Lawyers are trying to get rich off of it so they won't tell you (and "judges" do favor their "buddies")....

    Most don't even know that the FBI Lab was actually caught framing people for years -- even in Death cases -- giving the Field Agents whatever they wanted in reports and phony "evidence" and then they would go in and testilie as to it hiding behind their "FBI" persona from all the bs PR shows endlessly pimped in the Mainslime Media -- they were caught and zero happened of course, no reforms...this is your FBI, DOJ, Federal Judiciary and "government"--totally and completely corrupt and most have no clue and those who do won't tell you....: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/csi-is-a-lie/390897/

  17. @Nodwink
    All this talk of balkanization seems ridiculous to me, as an observer. Texas is not a "Red State," composed almost entirely of hardcore rednecks; California is not composed of transgender activists who love late-term abortion. There is much more homogeneity in the US than most people (esp. Unz readers) are seemingly aware of. Breaking up the USA won't solve your problems.

    Replies: @Ultrafart the Brave

    All this talk of balkanization seems ridiculous to me, as an observer.

    The breakup of the USSR came out of the blue, unprecedented, totally unexpected.
    And yet it happened.

    If it also happens to the USA, it likely won’t be a structured democratic choice by the common folk.

    More likely the citizenry will be swept along in an out-of-control political storm, similar to the (first) American civil war, but hopefully not so kinetic this time around.

    One might also observe that the underlying problem for Americans is not the political divide so much as the class divide – the ruling class versus everyone else (though the average Joe probably can’t see it).

    Breaking up the USA won’t solve your problems.

    The disintegration of the USSR didn’t really help their citizens, either – in fact, they almost imploded and ceased to be.

    That sure seemed to solve a lot of problems for some.

    Ditto the USA, if it comes to that. No more Empire of Bases dotted around the world? No more exporting of “freedom & democracy”? No more extraterritorial sanctions & high-seas piracy? No more American billionaires getting richer while the poor get the picture (one can dream)?

    And maybe American citizens could look forward to a bigger piece of the American Pie.

    Or not.

    • Replies: @Miro23
    @Ultrafart the Brave


    One might also observe that the underlying problem for Americans is not the political divide so much as the class divide – the ruling class versus everyone else (though the average Joe probably can’t see it).
     
    If the ruling class work through subverting Washington, then the first task would be to take back power (and tax revenue) from Washington.

    Apart from an expanded local government, each state would need an independent media (not the Associated Press news feed) and locally owned banking (free of the FED). Maybe use a UCS dollar issued by Texas.
  18. @Thomm
    All the self-flagellation about separation is very ignorant. It is unworkable for many reasons :

    i) The states are a continuum, with many states more accurately described as Purple, rather than red or blue. Life in a 48% blue state is no different on a day-to-day basis than life in a 52% blue state.
    ii) Splitting the country's GDP in half would ensure that neither country had a currency that maintained status as the world's reserve currency. Prosperity would fall 20% in both countries, while China ascends to superpower status as the highest-GDP country.
    iii) The blue-red split is urban-rural, rather than at a state level. Thus, no meaningful split is possible. If the split is at the county level, almost 100% of the food production and natural resources are in the red country.
    iv) Assuming voters migrate to the country of their voting pattern, white democrats know that their country will be just 30% white and 26% black. Thus their proclivity to virtue signal about racism, while ensuring that their neighborhoods and schools have no black people, is not sustainable either fiscally or spatially.
    v) El Chapo could make major inroads into the blue nation.
    vi) White Tr*shionalists are left-wing in economic views, mostly gay, and didn't back Trump. Normal white Republicans (like me) loathe White Tr*shionalists, and will not allow them into the red nation. How will the WN w*gg*rs avoid eradication in the blue nation? At least they will be in greater proximity to the females of their defective subrace - the fat bluehaired feminists, so that they can mutually torture each other.

    Okay, (vi) is the one good outcome of the split.


    In reality, if most Americans took a quiz about their political leanings that did not name any party, and was worded as to be decoupled from soundbytes, a substantial uniformity of opinion would present itself. The values of people aren't that different, it is just that the information sources they receive portray entirely different realities.

    In truth, if mainstream America listed the 100 most powerful leftists in America, and then randomly and anonymously started assassinating them, this artificial disunity would rapidly vanish by the 7th or 8th assassination.

    That is an astonishingly low price to pay for the preservation of America. It is on par with when Captain Benjamin Sisko was told by Elim Garak that Sisko had just saved the entire Alpha Quadrant for the "price of one Romulan Senator, one criminal, and the self-respect of one Starfleet Officer".

    I would call that a bargain.

    Replies: @Wyatt, @Johnny Smoggins, @Ryan Andrews, @anonymous, @Audacious Epigone

    That is an astonishingly low price to pay for the preservation of America. It is on par with when Captain Benjamin Sisko was told by Elim Garak that Sisko had just saved the entire Alpha Quadrant for the “price of one Romulan Senator, one criminal, and the self-respect of one Starfleet Officer”.

    You are a massive nerd for making that reference, but I won’t criticize you for it because I understood it perfectly.

  19. @Thomm
    All the self-flagellation about separation is very ignorant. It is unworkable for many reasons :

    i) The states are a continuum, with many states more accurately described as Purple, rather than red or blue. Life in a 48% blue state is no different on a day-to-day basis than life in a 52% blue state.
    ii) Splitting the country's GDP in half would ensure that neither country had a currency that maintained status as the world's reserve currency. Prosperity would fall 20% in both countries, while China ascends to superpower status as the highest-GDP country.
    iii) The blue-red split is urban-rural, rather than at a state level. Thus, no meaningful split is possible. If the split is at the county level, almost 100% of the food production and natural resources are in the red country.
    iv) Assuming voters migrate to the country of their voting pattern, white democrats know that their country will be just 30% white and 26% black. Thus their proclivity to virtue signal about racism, while ensuring that their neighborhoods and schools have no black people, is not sustainable either fiscally or spatially.
    v) El Chapo could make major inroads into the blue nation.
    vi) White Tr*shionalists are left-wing in economic views, mostly gay, and didn't back Trump. Normal white Republicans (like me) loathe White Tr*shionalists, and will not allow them into the red nation. How will the WN w*gg*rs avoid eradication in the blue nation? At least they will be in greater proximity to the females of their defective subrace - the fat bluehaired feminists, so that they can mutually torture each other.

    Okay, (vi) is the one good outcome of the split.


    In reality, if most Americans took a quiz about their political leanings that did not name any party, and was worded as to be decoupled from soundbytes, a substantial uniformity of opinion would present itself. The values of people aren't that different, it is just that the information sources they receive portray entirely different realities.

    In truth, if mainstream America listed the 100 most powerful leftists in America, and then randomly and anonymously started assassinating them, this artificial disunity would rapidly vanish by the 7th or 8th assassination.

    That is an astonishingly low price to pay for the preservation of America. It is on par with when Captain Benjamin Sisko was told by Elim Garak that Sisko had just saved the entire Alpha Quadrant for the "price of one Romulan Senator, one criminal, and the self-respect of one Starfleet Officer".

    I would call that a bargain.

    Replies: @Wyatt, @Johnny Smoggins, @Ryan Andrews, @anonymous, @Audacious Epigone

    Remember when your country, India, was partitioned to create Pakistan and Bangladesh? Separation can work.

    • Replies: @Thomm
    @Johnny Smoggins

    I am not a South Asian, you retard.

    Anyone who believes that is simply broadcasting that they love to be brainwashed by media Jews (RUnz in this case). There is zero evidence in favor of, and astronomical evidence against that narrative. Thulean Friend is also incorrectly called a 'South Asian', and there are a lot more elements pointing to that in his case, vs. with me.

    But it is even worse, since Ron Unz openly admitted that he knows I am not one, and he made it up to see if you 70-IQ w*gg*rs would simply believe anything he tells you to, even after he admitted that it was an experiment.

    Again, anyone who believes that is simply broadcasting that they love to be brainwashed by media Jews.

    Heh heh heh heh

    Replies: @Pericles

    , @WorkItOut
    @Johnny Smoggins

    I'm not so sure that separation has "worked". There have been three wars, a continuing nuclear stand-off, complication of matters with China, an increase, not a decrease, in animosity, hardened and pushed toward permanence, less of business and development opportunities, and so on.

    Replies: @WorkItOut, @dfordoom

  20. @anonymous
    Judges are just lawyers who played politics as a means of self-promotion. They're careerists who are into status and comfortable lifestyles so don't expect any Solomon-like wisdom from them, let alone taking a courageous stance. Perhaps they're looking out for their own interests. Why tie themselves to the past, Trump, he's outlived his usefulness, when they'll be dealing with a new regime which might be grateful to them. Their conservatism is just of the country-club money-bag variety, nothing to do with the majority of citizens.

    Replies: @Getaclue

    Nice description of things…–Anyone who has spent any time in Court– especially Federal Court knows it is a bad joke — if you are brought in on any “Crime” they will bankrupt you regardless of your “innocence” you will be financially ruined — they overcharge you with so many “Counts” that even if the Jury decides your Innocent they will “give one” to the Prosecution thinking it will be nothing since you were walked on the other 20 — they aren’t told that one is enough for 20 years —

    Actor Wesley Snipes was walked on all IRS Felonies and the Jury did just this and tossed a Misdemeanor at him only, which they thought would be nothing, the “judge” used it to put him away for 2 years — this is how it works but people don’t know unless they deal with the “system” and most don’t — Lawyers are trying to get rich off of it so they won’t tell you (and “judges” do favor their “buddies”)….

    Most don’t even know that the FBI Lab was actually caught framing people for years — even in Death cases — giving the Field Agents whatever they wanted in reports and phony “evidence” and then they would go in and testilie as to it hiding behind their “FBI” persona from all the bs PR shows endlessly pimped in the Mainslime Media — they were caught and zero happened of course, no reforms…this is your FBI, DOJ, Federal Judiciary and “government”–totally and completely corrupt and most have no clue and those who do won’t tell you….: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/csi-is-a-lie/390897/

  21. @Johnny Smoggins
    @Thomm

    Remember when your country, India, was partitioned to create Pakistan and Bangladesh? Separation can work.

    Replies: @Thomm, @WorkItOut

    I am not a South Asian, you retard.

    Anyone who believes that is simply broadcasting that they love to be brainwashed by media Jews (RUnz in this case). There is zero evidence in favor of, and astronomical evidence against that narrative. Thulean Friend is also incorrectly called a ‘South Asian’, and there are a lot more elements pointing to that in his case, vs. with me.

    But it is even worse, since Ron Unz openly admitted that he knows I am not one, and he made it up to see if you 70-IQ w*gg*rs would simply believe anything he tells you to, even after he admitted that it was an experiment.

    Again, anyone who believes that is simply broadcasting that they love to be brainwashed by media Jews.

    Heh heh heh heh

    • Replies: @Pericles
    @Thomm

    Sanjiv, please to be handling more customer calls and after work do the needful and speak with your manager after finished. You are behind on quota.

  22. @NotSoSolid
    Here are three counterarguments:

    "Each State shall appoint, in Such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors,..."
    The federal Constitution does not dictate how and to what extent state legislatures must directly approve of every detail of the statewide election process or appointment of electors, rather than delegate such authority, wholly or in part, to state administrative agencies. Furthermore, if the Michigan legislature thinks that the appointment of its electors is not what it "directed", it can take action, including appointing its electors in such manner as it directs. That is called "appropriate remedy".

    In addition, Texas is not entitled to any particular outcome of a presidential election. It is only entitled to casting its own votes in the electoral college. Michigan is not interfering with that. How Michigan handles its elections and electors is the business of Michigan. And that seems to be how the Supreme Court has ruled.

    Replies: @brabantian, @Jtgw

    Not quite right I think … under the common law notion of fraud, and because a fraudulent election in one state *does* greatly have an impact on people in other states, the Supreme Court should have taken the case & heard evidence

    Tho it’s true state legislators can flat-out pick electors for whatever gangster president they prefer, they can only do so without fraud … permitting a fraudulent ‘election’ with a fraudulent ‘vote total’ gives additional prestige & power to that president if he gets in, and that is direct harm to other states & citizens … also if congresspeople or senators are fraudulently elected, as they make laws for all

    The US Supreme Court refuses to hear arguments in 99% of all cases presented to it, literally … but what is very funny – Whilst denying to hear the Trump vote fraud case, the Justices did however this week agree, to hear in detail, an appeal by very-Jewish investment bank Goldman Sachs, which is seeking to evade judgments to pay investors who felt defrauded by Goldman

    Goldman Sachs being accused of fraud is one of those rare cases ‘important’ for the Supreme Court … but not the nation’s common citizens getting the wrong President through fraud, the Supreme Court ain’t got no time to even look at evidence about that
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-11/goldman-sachs-gets-high-court-review-it-sought-on-investor-suits

    Trump still does have legal authority to call the troops in to stay in office … Under USA federal law 10 US Code §253, the President can “by using militia or armed forces or any means … suppress in a State any conspiracy … if any part of people is deprived of a right … or denied equal protection of laws …”

    If the Supreme Court is part of the ‘conspiracy’ Trump can have the military arrest them too … and many hope Trump will do exactly that

    • Replies: @NotSoSolid
    @brabantian

    It seems to me that fraud cannot exist in the presence of absolute legal freedom. Fraud exists only if there is some legal limitation on the conduct, and that limitation has been violated. There is no limitation on the freedom of the State Legislature, and thus there can be no fraud in the appointment of electors no matter what was done in counting votes, unless the State Legislature appointed X and Y was sent instead.

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @brabantian

    Right-of-center Americans do not believe that they can suborn sedition online, so it is hard to respond candidly. Elections do not belong in the courts, anyway. Elections belong in the view of citizen witnesses who can attest to their authenticity.

    The denial of a forum in which to present evidence of the Steal is outrageous. If I wanted to brandish my shotgun in online response without straying into sedition, I might do it by predicting that other, unnamed citizens were loading their shotguns. But do you not see persons online predicting just that?

    I do not forecast civil war, but if I were a Leftist who wanted to provoke a civil war, I would do what Democrats are doing now.

    , @FraudOrNot
    @brabantian

    It seems to me that fraud cannot exist where there is absolute legal freedom. Fraud can exist only if there is some legal limitation on freedom, and that limitation is breached. There is no fraud in the appointment of Electors by a State Legislature, because they can do that as they please. The election is an input into the decision of the State Legislature, a matter internal to the state. What comes out of the state is the decision of the Legislature, in which there can be no fraud, unless if the State Legislature appointed Mr. X and instead Mr. Y cast the vote at the Electoral College.

  23. The special interest-dominated court system was not the proper venue to sort this out, nor should it be the last word. But what else could we expect from $1,000/hr election lawyers?

    Those Republican controlled, state legislatures should have voided the results; it was reported (fake?) that Trump had been working that angle himself. Naturally, all we heard from GOP assemblymen were legalistic platitudes about how elections, in their states, are fair.

    [MORE]

    That means the only hope remaining is for GOPs in the next Congress to challenge the electoral ballots; the news is that 126 GOP representatives supported Texas (and that a couple of GOP senators opposed).

    Come January, when those 126 will have the chance to put their words into action, none of those mealy-mouthed opportunists will do a thing.

    In the mean time, Trump should be rallying, on the steps of those five state capitols, for his supporters to initiate recall petitions targeting the RINOs, and running around the country to raise funds for the cost of signature gathering.

    Better yet, Trump should demand that those states send out unsolicited, mail-in, recall petitions.

  24. Only Gorsuch is a WASP, and he is a confirmed neo-conservative. The rest are six Catholics and two Jews.

    One of Trump’s most basic mistakes, assuming he was even genuine, was in appointing the wrong people. He claimed he wanted to “drain the Swamp”. He should have ignored any candidate who had served in any branch of the federal government and cast around at the state level. Instead, all of his appointments, including to the Supreme Court, have been federal retreads.

    In the case of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh specifically, they are both neocons.

    Barrett has two black children. I simply don’t understand that appointment. Trump himself would have come on here and explain it to us.

    As for the pre-Trump appointments to the Court:

    Roberts, a Bush II appointment, has no clear judicial philosophy and seems to be just an ambitious person who once called himself a conservative because he thought it was back in fashion: a conservative a mode, if you like.

    Kagan and Breyer are Jews. Say no more.

    Sotomayor is an ugly Hispanic SJW woman with a chip on her shoulder.

    Thomas and Alito are supposed to be the true conservatives, but Thomas is black, so how long do think that will last? Alito seems to be an anomaly., but he’s definitely not a WASP.

    The racio-ethnic composition of the apex court is the result of the effect of extreme diversity on American politics. Only one white Anglo-Saxon conservative males has been appointed (Gorsuch), and he is not even really a conservative, he is just an Establishment tool. The rest are just there due to holding an ascribed characteristic that appeases the congressional confirmation process: female or Hispanic or Catholic or adopted black kids or once said nice things about pandas, etc.

    Competence takes second place, if that.

    • Agree: mark green
    • Replies: @Lee
    @Tom Rogers

    TR said:


    Thomas and Alito are supposed to be the true conservatives, but Thomas is black, so how long do think that will last?
     
    It's lasted almost 30 years so far.

    Replies: @Hibernian, @Tom Rogers

    , @Wency
    @Tom Rogers


    Only Gorsuch is a WASP, and he is a confirmed neo-conservative. The rest are six Catholics and two Jews.
     
    Gorsuch was brought up Catholic and converted to Episcopalian for his wife (which should have been enough to know he was going to defect). I'd still consider him more of a Catholic than Sotomayor though.
  25. @brabantian
    @NotSoSolid

    Not quite right I think ... under the common law notion of fraud, and because a fraudulent election in one state *does* greatly have an impact on people in other states, the Supreme Court should have taken the case & heard evidence

    Tho it's true state legislators can flat-out pick electors for whatever gangster president they prefer, they can only do so without fraud ... permitting a fraudulent 'election' with a fraudulent 'vote total' gives additional prestige & power to that president if he gets in, and that is direct harm to other states & citizens ... also if congresspeople or senators are fraudulently elected, as they make laws for all

    The US Supreme Court refuses to hear arguments in 99% of all cases presented to it, literally ... but what is very funny - Whilst denying to hear the Trump vote fraud case, the Justices did however this week agree, to hear in detail, an appeal by very-Jewish investment bank Goldman Sachs, which is seeking to evade judgments to pay investors who felt defrauded by Goldman

    Goldman Sachs being accused of fraud is one of those rare cases 'important' for the Supreme Court ... but not the nation's common citizens getting the wrong President through fraud, the Supreme Court ain't got no time to even look at evidence about that
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-11/goldman-sachs-gets-high-court-review-it-sought-on-investor-suits

    Trump still does have legal authority to call the troops in to stay in office ... Under USA federal law 10 US Code §253, the President can "by using militia or armed forces or any means ... suppress in a State any conspiracy ... if any part of people is deprived of a right ... or denied equal protection of laws ..."

    If the Supreme Court is part of the 'conspiracy' Trump can have the military arrest them too ... and many hope Trump will do exactly that

    Replies: @NotSoSolid, @V. K. Ovelund, @FraudOrNot

    It seems to me that fraud cannot exist in the presence of absolute legal freedom. Fraud exists only if there is some legal limitation on the conduct, and that limitation has been violated. There is no limitation on the freedom of the State Legislature, and thus there can be no fraud in the appointment of electors no matter what was done in counting votes, unless the State Legislature appointed X and Y was sent instead.

  26. @brabantian
    @NotSoSolid

    Not quite right I think ... under the common law notion of fraud, and because a fraudulent election in one state *does* greatly have an impact on people in other states, the Supreme Court should have taken the case & heard evidence

    Tho it's true state legislators can flat-out pick electors for whatever gangster president they prefer, they can only do so without fraud ... permitting a fraudulent 'election' with a fraudulent 'vote total' gives additional prestige & power to that president if he gets in, and that is direct harm to other states & citizens ... also if congresspeople or senators are fraudulently elected, as they make laws for all

    The US Supreme Court refuses to hear arguments in 99% of all cases presented to it, literally ... but what is very funny - Whilst denying to hear the Trump vote fraud case, the Justices did however this week agree, to hear in detail, an appeal by very-Jewish investment bank Goldman Sachs, which is seeking to evade judgments to pay investors who felt defrauded by Goldman

    Goldman Sachs being accused of fraud is one of those rare cases 'important' for the Supreme Court ... but not the nation's common citizens getting the wrong President through fraud, the Supreme Court ain't got no time to even look at evidence about that
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-11/goldman-sachs-gets-high-court-review-it-sought-on-investor-suits

    Trump still does have legal authority to call the troops in to stay in office ... Under USA federal law 10 US Code §253, the President can "by using militia or armed forces or any means ... suppress in a State any conspiracy ... if any part of people is deprived of a right ... or denied equal protection of laws ..."

    If the Supreme Court is part of the 'conspiracy' Trump can have the military arrest them too ... and many hope Trump will do exactly that

    Replies: @NotSoSolid, @V. K. Ovelund, @FraudOrNot

    Right-of-center Americans do not believe that they can suborn sedition online, so it is hard to respond candidly. Elections do not belong in the courts, anyway. Elections belong in the view of citizen witnesses who can attest to their authenticity.

    The denial of a forum in which to present evidence of the Steal is outrageous. If I wanted to brandish my shotgun in online response without straying into sedition, I might do it by predicting that other, unnamed citizens were loading their shotguns. But do you not see persons online predicting just that?

    I do not forecast civil war, but if I were a Leftist who wanted to provoke a civil war, I would do what Democrats are doing now.

  27. @Johnny Smoggins
    @Thomm

    Remember when your country, India, was partitioned to create Pakistan and Bangladesh? Separation can work.

    Replies: @Thomm, @WorkItOut

    I’m not so sure that separation has “worked”. There have been three wars, a continuing nuclear stand-off, complication of matters with China, an increase, not a decrease, in animosity, hardened and pushed toward permanence, less of business and development opportunities, and so on.

    • Replies: @WorkItOut
    @WorkItOut

    Not to mention support for Mujahideen and later the Taliban in Afghanistan, which began a catastrophic sequence of events there. And not to mention the rise of Hindu fundamentalism, with consequences now unfolding. It seems to me that the Partition didn't work. It is a disaster.

    , @dfordoom
    @WorkItOut


    I’m not so sure that separation has “worked”. There have been three wars, a continuing nuclear stand-off, complication of matters with China, an increase, not a decrease, in animosity, hardened and pushed toward permanence, less of business and development opportunities, and so on.
     
    Not to mention that possibly as many as a million people were killed in the peaceful separation of India and Pakistan. The Partition of India was if anything proof that peaceful separation doesn't work.

    Replies: @follyofwar

  28. Anonymous[105] • Disclaimer says:

    I would be favorable to a breakup of the country only if I thought there would be a meaningful policy differences in the two successors. If the Red-state nation is just what we have now with lower taxes for pass-through income, you can count me out of any secessionist movement. Because that’s all Trump and Mitch McConnel have delivered us. That’s all they want to deliver to us. I understand that it’s really important, psychologically, for a lot of you to have Donald Trump in the white house even though he isn’t doing anything, because he’s the alpha male daddy you never had. But that’s just not a priority for me.

  29. @WorkItOut
    @Johnny Smoggins

    I'm not so sure that separation has "worked". There have been three wars, a continuing nuclear stand-off, complication of matters with China, an increase, not a decrease, in animosity, hardened and pushed toward permanence, less of business and development opportunities, and so on.

    Replies: @WorkItOut, @dfordoom

    Not to mention support for Mujahideen and later the Taliban in Afghanistan, which began a catastrophic sequence of events there. And not to mention the rise of Hindu fundamentalism, with consequences now unfolding. It seems to me that the Partition didn’t work. It is a disaster.

  30. @brabantian
    @NotSoSolid

    Not quite right I think ... under the common law notion of fraud, and because a fraudulent election in one state *does* greatly have an impact on people in other states, the Supreme Court should have taken the case & heard evidence

    Tho it's true state legislators can flat-out pick electors for whatever gangster president they prefer, they can only do so without fraud ... permitting a fraudulent 'election' with a fraudulent 'vote total' gives additional prestige & power to that president if he gets in, and that is direct harm to other states & citizens ... also if congresspeople or senators are fraudulently elected, as they make laws for all

    The US Supreme Court refuses to hear arguments in 99% of all cases presented to it, literally ... but what is very funny - Whilst denying to hear the Trump vote fraud case, the Justices did however this week agree, to hear in detail, an appeal by very-Jewish investment bank Goldman Sachs, which is seeking to evade judgments to pay investors who felt defrauded by Goldman

    Goldman Sachs being accused of fraud is one of those rare cases 'important' for the Supreme Court ... but not the nation's common citizens getting the wrong President through fraud, the Supreme Court ain't got no time to even look at evidence about that
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-11/goldman-sachs-gets-high-court-review-it-sought-on-investor-suits

    Trump still does have legal authority to call the troops in to stay in office ... Under USA federal law 10 US Code §253, the President can "by using militia or armed forces or any means ... suppress in a State any conspiracy ... if any part of people is deprived of a right ... or denied equal protection of laws ..."

    If the Supreme Court is part of the 'conspiracy' Trump can have the military arrest them too ... and many hope Trump will do exactly that

    Replies: @NotSoSolid, @V. K. Ovelund, @FraudOrNot

    It seems to me that fraud cannot exist where there is absolute legal freedom. Fraud can exist only if there is some legal limitation on freedom, and that limitation is breached. There is no fraud in the appointment of Electors by a State Legislature, because they can do that as they please. The election is an input into the decision of the State Legislature, a matter internal to the state. What comes out of the state is the decision of the Legislature, in which there can be no fraud, unless if the State Legislature appointed Mr. X and instead Mr. Y cast the vote at the Electoral College.

  31. If a division occurs, it will have to look like the U.S. House map to save Red Patriots from deranged Blue SJWastika fascism.
     

     
    I believe this type of division is highly unlikely. Nazicrats are willing to openly break their word on elections. To me, it seems highly likely they will break their word on any separation deal.

    How will nuclear weapons be distributed? Do you actually think that the irrational SJW Globalists could be trusted with a solution based on Mutually Assured Destruction [MAD]?
    ___

    If everything comes unglued, Team Red Patriots control food and other irreplaceable resources. Instead of a division, it is much more likely that Team Red will force Blue Cities to capitulate or starve.

    PEACE 😇

  32. @anonymous
    Forget it, Jake it's Ginatown. The constitution got revoked in '49 by the Central Intelligence Agency Act.

    Now we can autopsy the latest president who pulled at CIA's leash. Quite a few have, a little bit. Truman groused but did what he was told and rubberstamped NCS 10/2. Eisenhower thought he could do what he wanted - with Herter, he tried to negotiate comprehensive disarmament, but CIA ratfucked him with a series of provocations culminating in the U-2 flameout, and CIA got what they wanted instead, the New Look. Kennedy came in with a chip on his shoulder from his Dad but, you know, BLAM.

    Then nobody misbehaved till Nixon, who escaped CIA's bubble and extracted the family jewels but got purged in the Watergate ratfuck. Carter tried to make CIA go by human rights and got purged with the embassy-hostages ratfuck. Then CIA installed their nomenklatura themselves: DCI Bush, Oxford Secret Agent and Mena comprador Clinton, Bush II, spy brat Obama (Reagan was a puppet whose job was to get shot and die for Bush.)

    After that long streak, Trump was the first president CIA didn't get to install. And now he's purged too. Why did he fail? Of all the insubordinate presidents, Nixon came closest to getting loose of CIA. Cause he had Schlesinger, who did more to free us in five months that anybody ever did. Trump didn't have a Schlesinger so he never had a chance. Flynn might have been Trump's Schlesinger but CIA focal points in justice mobilized to destroy him.

    Replies: @SaneClownPosse

    Eisenhower had the Dulles brothers running both State Dept and CIA.
    Eisenhower spent his lifetime inside the MIC beast.
    Iran is a legacy from the Dulles Brothers era.

  33. @Tom Rogers
    Only Gorsuch is a WASP, and he is a confirmed neo-conservative. The rest are six Catholics and two Jews.

    One of Trump's most basic mistakes, assuming he was even genuine, was in appointing the wrong people. He claimed he wanted to "drain the Swamp". He should have ignored any candidate who had served in any branch of the federal government and cast around at the state level. Instead, all of his appointments, including to the Supreme Court, have been federal retreads.

    In the case of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh specifically, they are both neocons.

    Barrett has two black children. I simply don't understand that appointment. Trump himself would have come on here and explain it to us.

    As for the pre-Trump appointments to the Court:

    Roberts, a Bush II appointment, has no clear judicial philosophy and seems to be just an ambitious person who once called himself a conservative because he thought it was back in fashion: a conservative a mode, if you like.

    Kagan and Breyer are Jews. Say no more.

    Sotomayor is an ugly Hispanic SJW woman with a chip on her shoulder.

    Thomas and Alito are supposed to be the true conservatives, but Thomas is black, so how long do think that will last? Alito seems to be an anomaly., but he's definitely not a WASP.

    The racio-ethnic composition of the apex court is the result of the effect of extreme diversity on American politics. Only one white Anglo-Saxon conservative males has been appointed (Gorsuch), and he is not even really a conservative, he is just an Establishment tool. The rest are just there due to holding an ascribed characteristic that appeases the congressional confirmation process: female or Hispanic or Catholic or adopted black kids or once said nice things about pandas, etc.

    Competence takes second place, if that.

    Replies: @Lee, @Wency

    TR said:

    Thomas and Alito are supposed to be the true conservatives, but Thomas is black, so how long do think that will last?

    It’s lasted almost 30 years so far.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @Lee

    Thomas is the most Conservative Justice. He's very slightly to the right of Alito.

    Replies: @Tom Rogers

    , @Tom Rogers
    @Lee

    You mean in between him saying he's against racism? You don't really think a black man can be a conservative in anything other than a superficial sense?

  34. anon[389] • Disclaimer says:

    SaneClownPosse 32, Dulles selected Eisenhower, not the other way around. The presumptive nominee was Robert Taft, but he was a legalist – his objection to the UN was that the veto gives the P-5 impunity. Dulles ratfucked Taft out of the nomination like Hillary’s CIA backers ratfucked Sanders out of his. Eisenhower was supposed to be a malleable senile bureaucrat like Biden. But even he had other ideas. He and Herter almost demilitarized the world. Prouty explained how CIA stopped him:

    https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ST/

  35. @Ultrafart the Brave
    @Nodwink


    All this talk of balkanization seems ridiculous to me, as an observer.
     
    The breakup of the USSR came out of the blue, unprecedented, totally unexpected.
    And yet it happened.

    If it also happens to the USA, it likely won't be a structured democratic choice by the common folk.

    More likely the citizenry will be swept along in an out-of-control political storm, similar to the (first) American civil war, but hopefully not so kinetic this time around.

    One might also observe that the underlying problem for Americans is not the political divide so much as the class divide - the ruling class versus everyone else (though the average Joe probably can't see it).


    Breaking up the USA won’t solve your problems.
     
    The disintegration of the USSR didn't really help their citizens, either - in fact, they almost imploded and ceased to be.

    That sure seemed to solve a lot of problems for some.

    Ditto the USA, if it comes to that. No more Empire of Bases dotted around the world? No more exporting of "freedom & democracy"? No more extraterritorial sanctions & high-seas piracy? No more American billionaires getting richer while the poor get the picture (one can dream)?

    And maybe American citizens could look forward to a bigger piece of the American Pie.

    Or not.

    Replies: @Miro23

    One might also observe that the underlying problem for Americans is not the political divide so much as the class divide – the ruling class versus everyone else (though the average Joe probably can’t see it).

    If the ruling class work through subverting Washington, then the first task would be to take back power (and tax revenue) from Washington.

    Apart from an expanded local government, each state would need an independent media (not the Associated Press news feed) and locally owned banking (free of the FED). Maybe use a UCS dollar issued by Texas.

  36. @Alexander Turok

    Texas was effectively dismissed for not having standing to bring the case in a 7-2 decision. The seven included all three of Donald Trump’s appointments to the court. Good thing he went to the mat for Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett. They really came through for him when it counted.
     
    I guess they didn't get the memo they were appointees who owed eternal loyalty to Dumb Prole President. And why should anyone be loyal to him? Darren Beattie learned how much loyalty to Trump gets you.

    Replies: @Curmudgeon

    I guess they didn’t get the memo they were appointees who owed eternal loyalty to Dumb Prole President.

    Their loyalty is to the US Constitution and the rule of law. When the Pennsylvania Executive Branch went to the Pennsylvania Judicial Branch to alter the law, passed by the Legislative Branch, permitting more mail in voting. The Executive and Judicial Branches usurped the authority of the Legislative Branch on elections, which is clear and unequivocal in the US Constitution.

    Not that I am surprised. Any court that can declare a corporation a person under the Constitution, even though it can´t vote, or declare same sex marriage is what the framers had in mind, even though there were laws prohibiting it before during and after the Constitution was ratified, can´t be expected to do the right thing.

  37. @WorkItOut
    @Johnny Smoggins

    I'm not so sure that separation has "worked". There have been three wars, a continuing nuclear stand-off, complication of matters with China, an increase, not a decrease, in animosity, hardened and pushed toward permanence, less of business and development opportunities, and so on.

    Replies: @WorkItOut, @dfordoom

    I’m not so sure that separation has “worked”. There have been three wars, a continuing nuclear stand-off, complication of matters with China, an increase, not a decrease, in animosity, hardened and pushed toward permanence, less of business and development opportunities, and so on.

    Not to mention that possibly as many as a million people were killed in the peaceful separation of India and Pakistan. The Partition of India was if anything proof that peaceful separation doesn’t work.

    • Replies: @follyofwar
    @dfordoom

    Peaceful separation could have worked in the US if the tyrannical Abe Lincoln had not been elected.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone

  38. Texas suit was dismissed because it was so laughably over-reaching that even Trump’s tame lapdogs had no choice but to dismiss it if SC was to maintain even a shred of legitimacy.

    But succession along the state lines? Look at that map above: this is just a jumble worse than Palestinian territories that would not really be viable for anyone, except maybe California which as the fifth largest economy in the world would probably do just fine… until it slides into the ocean, anyway.

    If you want to split the country I’d be all in favour (pledge of allegiance notwithstanding, I see no reason why any country should be “indivisible”), but you need to figure out another way of doing it.

    • Replies: @raga10
    @raga10

    ... clearly I intended to say secession, not succession. Silly me!

  39. @raga10
    Texas suit was dismissed because it was so laughably over-reaching that even Trump's tame lapdogs had no choice but to dismiss it if SC was to maintain even a shred of legitimacy.

    But succession along the state lines? Look at that map above: this is just a jumble worse than Palestinian territories that would not really be viable for anyone, except maybe California which as the fifth largest economy in the world would probably do just fine... until it slides into the ocean, anyway.

    If you want to split the country I'd be all in favour (pledge of allegiance notwithstanding, I see no reason why any country should be "indivisible"), but you need to figure out another way of doing it.

    Replies: @raga10

    … clearly I intended to say secession, not succession. Silly me!

  40. The court’s WASP told them to go pound sand.

    Roberts is Catholic and likely at least part Irish.

    • Replies: @Tom Rogers
    @Hibernian

    Roberts' ancestry is Irish and Slovak.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Hibernian

    The reference was to Gorsuch.

  41. @Lee
    @Tom Rogers

    TR said:


    Thomas and Alito are supposed to be the true conservatives, but Thomas is black, so how long do think that will last?
     
    It's lasted almost 30 years so far.

    Replies: @Hibernian, @Tom Rogers

    Thomas is the most Conservative Justice. He’s very slightly to the right of Alito.

    • Replies: @Tom Rogers
    @Hibernian

    Then the Court is more gone than I thought.

  42. @Thomm
    All the self-flagellation about separation is very ignorant. It is unworkable for many reasons :

    i) The states are a continuum, with many states more accurately described as Purple, rather than red or blue. Life in a 48% blue state is no different on a day-to-day basis than life in a 52% blue state.
    ii) Splitting the country's GDP in half would ensure that neither country had a currency that maintained status as the world's reserve currency. Prosperity would fall 20% in both countries, while China ascends to superpower status as the highest-GDP country.
    iii) The blue-red split is urban-rural, rather than at a state level. Thus, no meaningful split is possible. If the split is at the county level, almost 100% of the food production and natural resources are in the red country.
    iv) Assuming voters migrate to the country of their voting pattern, white democrats know that their country will be just 30% white and 26% black. Thus their proclivity to virtue signal about racism, while ensuring that their neighborhoods and schools have no black people, is not sustainable either fiscally or spatially.
    v) El Chapo could make major inroads into the blue nation.
    vi) White Tr*shionalists are left-wing in economic views, mostly gay, and didn't back Trump. Normal white Republicans (like me) loathe White Tr*shionalists, and will not allow them into the red nation. How will the WN w*gg*rs avoid eradication in the blue nation? At least they will be in greater proximity to the females of their defective subrace - the fat bluehaired feminists, so that they can mutually torture each other.

    Okay, (vi) is the one good outcome of the split.


    In reality, if most Americans took a quiz about their political leanings that did not name any party, and was worded as to be decoupled from soundbytes, a substantial uniformity of opinion would present itself. The values of people aren't that different, it is just that the information sources they receive portray entirely different realities.

    In truth, if mainstream America listed the 100 most powerful leftists in America, and then randomly and anonymously started assassinating them, this artificial disunity would rapidly vanish by the 7th or 8th assassination.

    That is an astonishingly low price to pay for the preservation of America. It is on par with when Captain Benjamin Sisko was told by Elim Garak that Sisko had just saved the entire Alpha Quadrant for the "price of one Romulan Senator, one criminal, and the self-respect of one Starfleet Officer".

    I would call that a bargain.

    Replies: @Wyatt, @Johnny Smoggins, @Ryan Andrews, @anonymous, @Audacious Epigone

    If the proportion of conservatives to left-liberals were exactly the same in every last census block in the country, it would still be worth dividing the place in two, and letting those so inclined move to the country of their choice.

    As it happens however, that is not the case. In fact, red-state America, with the exception of Alaska, is literally a contiguous block. Yet instead of thanking their good fortune at such an opportunity falling into their laps (they certainly didn’t do anything to deserve it), conservatives alternate between fraudulently puffing-their-chests about not surrendering all the red counties in blue states and pathetically moaning that blue counties are mixed in with most red states; ‘it’s all so impractical.’ So, in true conservative fashion, they do nothing. If as a conservative, you cannot see that half the country (probably a bit more, really) is utterly and irrevocably lost, and that if you don’t act to conserve the other half, that too will be lost within a couple generations, then I don’t know what to say. You can lead a horse to water, but if he thinks the strain of craning his neck to take a drink is not worth the effort, then he’s not going to make it.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  43. @Thomm
    All the self-flagellation about separation is very ignorant. It is unworkable for many reasons :

    i) The states are a continuum, with many states more accurately described as Purple, rather than red or blue. Life in a 48% blue state is no different on a day-to-day basis than life in a 52% blue state.
    ii) Splitting the country's GDP in half would ensure that neither country had a currency that maintained status as the world's reserve currency. Prosperity would fall 20% in both countries, while China ascends to superpower status as the highest-GDP country.
    iii) The blue-red split is urban-rural, rather than at a state level. Thus, no meaningful split is possible. If the split is at the county level, almost 100% of the food production and natural resources are in the red country.
    iv) Assuming voters migrate to the country of their voting pattern, white democrats know that their country will be just 30% white and 26% black. Thus their proclivity to virtue signal about racism, while ensuring that their neighborhoods and schools have no black people, is not sustainable either fiscally or spatially.
    v) El Chapo could make major inroads into the blue nation.
    vi) White Tr*shionalists are left-wing in economic views, mostly gay, and didn't back Trump. Normal white Republicans (like me) loathe White Tr*shionalists, and will not allow them into the red nation. How will the WN w*gg*rs avoid eradication in the blue nation? At least they will be in greater proximity to the females of their defective subrace - the fat bluehaired feminists, so that they can mutually torture each other.

    Okay, (vi) is the one good outcome of the split.


    In reality, if most Americans took a quiz about their political leanings that did not name any party, and was worded as to be decoupled from soundbytes, a substantial uniformity of opinion would present itself. The values of people aren't that different, it is just that the information sources they receive portray entirely different realities.

    In truth, if mainstream America listed the 100 most powerful leftists in America, and then randomly and anonymously started assassinating them, this artificial disunity would rapidly vanish by the 7th or 8th assassination.

    That is an astonishingly low price to pay for the preservation of America. It is on par with when Captain Benjamin Sisko was told by Elim Garak that Sisko had just saved the entire Alpha Quadrant for the "price of one Romulan Senator, one criminal, and the self-respect of one Starfleet Officer".

    I would call that a bargain.

    Replies: @Wyatt, @Johnny Smoggins, @Ryan Andrews, @anonymous, @Audacious Epigone

    No one thinks secession will involve half of the country. Just the ones who are independent minded and parts of the deep south. It will be probably be Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.

  44. anon[187] • Disclaimer says:

    This thread really shows the power of synthetic factions for CIA brainwashing. They give you two teams, red and blue, like it’s a football game. (Only two – they crush any other team that wants to play.) You pick a team, sit in the stands and wave your pom-poms.

    The game is blatantly fixed, but when CIA fixed it for red to put Bush in, the red dupes were happy. When CIA fixed it to keep Bush in, the red dupes were happy. Now, finally, when you lose the fake game, you’re ready to admit you got robbed.

    What’s worse, you want to break the country in two. When it’s gonna be a menace to the whole until you break it into much smaller pieces. Costa Rica sized pieces with Costa Rica sized militaries and no nukes.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @anon


    What’s worse, you want to break the country in two. When it’s gonna be a menace to the whole until you break it into much smaller pieces. Costa Rica sized pieces with Costa Rica sized militaries and no nukes.
     
    That would be the best outcome. At the very least break the US up into small states with populations about the size of Canada.

    If the US breaks up at all there will be non-stop wars unless all the successor mini-states have nukes.
  45. @dfordoom
    @WorkItOut


    I’m not so sure that separation has “worked”. There have been three wars, a continuing nuclear stand-off, complication of matters with China, an increase, not a decrease, in animosity, hardened and pushed toward permanence, less of business and development opportunities, and so on.
     
    Not to mention that possibly as many as a million people were killed in the peaceful separation of India and Pakistan. The Partition of India was if anything proof that peaceful separation doesn't work.

    Replies: @follyofwar

    Peaceful separation could have worked in the US if the tyrannical Abe Lincoln had not been elected.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @follyofwar


    Peaceful separation could have worked in the US if the tyrannical Abe Lincoln had not been elected.
     
    Next time you're going to be facing people much more ruthless than Lincoln.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    @follyofwar

    Brexit is the most relevant, comparable case for American political dissolution. Rather than violence, I expect slow-rolling into exhaustion will be the biggest problem to overcome.

  46. @Sgt. Joe Friday
    Others have made this point elsewhere, but I think SCOTUS ruled the way they did to protect themselves from Democrats' packing the court in a fit of angry vengeance for not having ruled "correctly," i.e. the way the Democrats wanted them to.

    I don't think secession is in the cards. I left California for Idaho 1-1/2 years ago, and what I'm observing is probably happening in other parts of the country: middle class (mostly white) people are fleeing blue states for places like this. That suggests to me that a soft partitioning is underway, and we'll end up with people self-sorting into areas where they feel more comfortable, e.g. middle class whites to the mountain west, Hispanics to the southwest, blacks to the south and large cities of the upper midwest, Asians to Seattle and the SFO bay area, etc. etc.

    So maybe the best we can hope for is a sort of self segregation where we all try our best to ignore each other and muddle along. I suppose the problem with that is that I moved here just wanting to be left alone, while leftist busybodies who live hundreds or even thousands of miles away from me can't stand that idea.

    Replies: @Pericles

    Others have made this point elsewhere, but I think SCOTUS ruled the way they did to protect themselves from Democrats’ packing the court in a fit of angry vengeance for not having ruled “correctly,” i.e. the way the Democrats wanted them to.

    It was great that Trump at least got to pick three judges on the Suprem-io Court-io, wasn’t it? Strictly speaking, however, they didn’t protect themselves against anything, they just cucked and ran like the useless, compromised jackrabbits that they are. (Excepting the black and the med.)

    There will always be a next time to pack that court and that’s the only guarantee they now have. Not that I think they would truly mind, since it’s for the greater cause of niceness and all.

  47. @Thomm
    @Johnny Smoggins

    I am not a South Asian, you retard.

    Anyone who believes that is simply broadcasting that they love to be brainwashed by media Jews (RUnz in this case). There is zero evidence in favor of, and astronomical evidence against that narrative. Thulean Friend is also incorrectly called a 'South Asian', and there are a lot more elements pointing to that in his case, vs. with me.

    But it is even worse, since Ron Unz openly admitted that he knows I am not one, and he made it up to see if you 70-IQ w*gg*rs would simply believe anything he tells you to, even after he admitted that it was an experiment.

    Again, anyone who believes that is simply broadcasting that they love to be brainwashed by media Jews.

    Heh heh heh heh

    Replies: @Pericles

    Sanjiv, please to be handling more customer calls and after work do the needful and speak with your manager after finished. You are behind on quota.

  48. @anarchyst
    Texas is in a unique position on two fronts:

    1. The Republic of Texas never signed the (coerced) non-secession agreement to regain admission to the union that the rest of the vanquished Confederate states signed.

    2. Texas is not a part of either the eastern or western power grid, maintaining its own power grid.

    These two points give Texas much more power in matters of secession than just about any other state.

    Go Texas!

    Replies: @follyofwar

    I recently read that, in negotiations with the federal government when it was still a free Republic, Texas retained the right to divide into five separate states. So, if the democrats try to make DC and Puerto Rico into two new blue states, Texas should employ the Nuclear Option, and create four more (hopefully) red states. Since the cowardly SC has set a dangerous precedent by dismissing the Texas case without even bothering to hear it, shouldn’t it follow that the SC should keep its hands off of that case too, if it ever comes before them?

  49. @Lee
    @Tom Rogers

    TR said:


    Thomas and Alito are supposed to be the true conservatives, but Thomas is black, so how long do think that will last?
     
    It's lasted almost 30 years so far.

    Replies: @Hibernian, @Tom Rogers

    You mean in between him saying he’s against racism? You don’t really think a black man can be a conservative in anything other than a superficial sense?

  50. @Hibernian
    @Lee

    Thomas is the most Conservative Justice. He's very slightly to the right of Alito.

    Replies: @Tom Rogers

    Then the Court is more gone than I thought.

  51. @Hibernian

    The court’s WASP told them to go pound sand.
     
    Roberts is Catholic and likely at least part Irish.

    Replies: @Tom Rogers, @Audacious Epigone

    Roberts’ ancestry is Irish and Slovak.

  52. @follyofwar
    @dfordoom

    Peaceful separation could have worked in the US if the tyrannical Abe Lincoln had not been elected.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone

    Peaceful separation could have worked in the US if the tyrannical Abe Lincoln had not been elected.

    Next time you’re going to be facing people much more ruthless than Lincoln.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Disagree: Audacious Epigone
  53. @NotSoSolid
    Here are three counterarguments:

    "Each State shall appoint, in Such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors,..."
    The federal Constitution does not dictate how and to what extent state legislatures must directly approve of every detail of the statewide election process or appointment of electors, rather than delegate such authority, wholly or in part, to state administrative agencies. Furthermore, if the Michigan legislature thinks that the appointment of its electors is not what it "directed", it can take action, including appointing its electors in such manner as it directs. That is called "appropriate remedy".

    In addition, Texas is not entitled to any particular outcome of a presidential election. It is only entitled to casting its own votes in the electoral college. Michigan is not interfering with that. How Michigan handles its elections and electors is the business of Michigan. And that seems to be how the Supreme Court has ruled.

    Replies: @brabantian, @Jtgw

    Not to mention that similar administrative changes to election rules were made in states that went for Trump and yet the suit is not seeking to disqualify votes there. I agree the legal argument here is pretty feeble. But then if you reject the legitimacy of the entire government as I do then what matters is that more and more people are also rejecting it; whether they reject it for good or bad reasons is of secondary importance.

  54. @anon
    This thread really shows the power of synthetic factions for CIA brainwashing. They give you two teams, red and blue, like it's a football game. (Only two - they crush any other team that wants to play.) You pick a team, sit in the stands and wave your pom-poms.

    The game is blatantly fixed, but when CIA fixed it for red to put Bush in, the red dupes were happy. When CIA fixed it to keep Bush in, the red dupes were happy. Now, finally, when you lose the fake game, you're ready to admit you got robbed.

    What's worse, you want to break the country in two. When it's gonna be a menace to the whole until you break it into much smaller pieces. Costa Rica sized pieces with Costa Rica sized militaries and no nukes.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    What’s worse, you want to break the country in two. When it’s gonna be a menace to the whole until you break it into much smaller pieces. Costa Rica sized pieces with Costa Rica sized militaries and no nukes.

    That would be the best outcome. At the very least break the US up into small states with populations about the size of Canada.

    If the US breaks up at all there will be non-stop wars unless all the successor mini-states have nukes.

  55. @Tom Rogers
    Only Gorsuch is a WASP, and he is a confirmed neo-conservative. The rest are six Catholics and two Jews.

    One of Trump's most basic mistakes, assuming he was even genuine, was in appointing the wrong people. He claimed he wanted to "drain the Swamp". He should have ignored any candidate who had served in any branch of the federal government and cast around at the state level. Instead, all of his appointments, including to the Supreme Court, have been federal retreads.

    In the case of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh specifically, they are both neocons.

    Barrett has two black children. I simply don't understand that appointment. Trump himself would have come on here and explain it to us.

    As for the pre-Trump appointments to the Court:

    Roberts, a Bush II appointment, has no clear judicial philosophy and seems to be just an ambitious person who once called himself a conservative because he thought it was back in fashion: a conservative a mode, if you like.

    Kagan and Breyer are Jews. Say no more.

    Sotomayor is an ugly Hispanic SJW woman with a chip on her shoulder.

    Thomas and Alito are supposed to be the true conservatives, but Thomas is black, so how long do think that will last? Alito seems to be an anomaly., but he's definitely not a WASP.

    The racio-ethnic composition of the apex court is the result of the effect of extreme diversity on American politics. Only one white Anglo-Saxon conservative males has been appointed (Gorsuch), and he is not even really a conservative, he is just an Establishment tool. The rest are just there due to holding an ascribed characteristic that appeases the congressional confirmation process: female or Hispanic or Catholic or adopted black kids or once said nice things about pandas, etc.

    Competence takes second place, if that.

    Replies: @Lee, @Wency

    Only Gorsuch is a WASP, and he is a confirmed neo-conservative. The rest are six Catholics and two Jews.

    Gorsuch was brought up Catholic and converted to Episcopalian for his wife (which should have been enough to know he was going to defect). I’d still consider him more of a Catholic than Sotomayor though.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  56. @Thomm
    All the self-flagellation about separation is very ignorant. It is unworkable for many reasons :

    i) The states are a continuum, with many states more accurately described as Purple, rather than red or blue. Life in a 48% blue state is no different on a day-to-day basis than life in a 52% blue state.
    ii) Splitting the country's GDP in half would ensure that neither country had a currency that maintained status as the world's reserve currency. Prosperity would fall 20% in both countries, while China ascends to superpower status as the highest-GDP country.
    iii) The blue-red split is urban-rural, rather than at a state level. Thus, no meaningful split is possible. If the split is at the county level, almost 100% of the food production and natural resources are in the red country.
    iv) Assuming voters migrate to the country of their voting pattern, white democrats know that their country will be just 30% white and 26% black. Thus their proclivity to virtue signal about racism, while ensuring that their neighborhoods and schools have no black people, is not sustainable either fiscally or spatially.
    v) El Chapo could make major inroads into the blue nation.
    vi) White Tr*shionalists are left-wing in economic views, mostly gay, and didn't back Trump. Normal white Republicans (like me) loathe White Tr*shionalists, and will not allow them into the red nation. How will the WN w*gg*rs avoid eradication in the blue nation? At least they will be in greater proximity to the females of their defective subrace - the fat bluehaired feminists, so that they can mutually torture each other.

    Okay, (vi) is the one good outcome of the split.


    In reality, if most Americans took a quiz about their political leanings that did not name any party, and was worded as to be decoupled from soundbytes, a substantial uniformity of opinion would present itself. The values of people aren't that different, it is just that the information sources they receive portray entirely different realities.

    In truth, if mainstream America listed the 100 most powerful leftists in America, and then randomly and anonymously started assassinating them, this artificial disunity would rapidly vanish by the 7th or 8th assassination.

    That is an astonishingly low price to pay for the preservation of America. It is on par with when Captain Benjamin Sisko was told by Elim Garak that Sisko had just saved the entire Alpha Quadrant for the "price of one Romulan Senator, one criminal, and the self-respect of one Starfleet Officer".

    I would call that a bargain.

    Replies: @Wyatt, @Johnny Smoggins, @Ryan Andrews, @anonymous, @Audacious Epigone

    i) The states are a continuum, with many states more accurately described as Purple, rather than red or blue. Life in a 48% blue state is no different on a day-to-day basis than life in a 52% blue state.

    Florida tipping red in the 2018 gubernatorial election has made a big difference in day-to-day life, but the general point is well taken.

    Re: ii), that’s why I assume a crashing dollar will be the impetus for dissolution.

    Re: iii), politically separate nations need not be hostile to one another. The US and Canada aren’t enemies.

    Re: iv), whites in urban areas vote very heavily Democrat now despite often being minorities.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Audacious Epigone


    Re: iii), politically separate nations need not be hostile to one another. The US and Canada aren’t enemies.
     
    Sorry AE but there really is so much wishful thinking there. The whole point of political dissolution of the US is that different ideological groups within the country hate each other's guts so intensely that they're incapable of living in the same country without being at each other's throats. And you think they're not going to continue to hate each other's guts as separate countries?

    As separate countries with their own military and intelligence establishments which would give them the capability to really do damage to each other?

    And if they became separate nations there would be bitter economic rivalries to add fuel to the fire.

    And you think people like Soros would not stoke the flames of those national rivalries?

    We're not just talking about ideological differences. We're talking about ideological differences that are seen as being matters of moral righteousness versus moral evil. You don't think that these newly separate nations would immediately start planning color revolution and regime change operations against each other? The US already does that to nations thousands of miles away that are zero threat to the US. These newly separate nations would be next door to each other and would be genuine existential threats to each other.

    The US already sees the very existence of other countries on other continents that do not toe the US ideological line as sufficient reason to try to destroy those nations.

    It wouldn't be like the US and Canada. That's pure fantasy. It would be more like the Middle East - endless wars and in between the wars there would be endless low-level warfare with assassinations and attempts to overthrow governments in neighbouring countries.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  57. @Miro23

    The head of the Republican Party of Texas, Allen West, sent out a statement where he floated the idea of secession.

    'Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution,' he said.

    https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2020/12/11/texas-gop-chair-allen-west-suggests-law-abiding-states-form-union-supreme-court-rejects-lawsuit-election-results/

     

    If it happened, the Union of Constitutional States would probably look something like this:

    https://media.kvue.com/assets/KVUE/images/792f8aab-23d4-4d29-b734-78ac747556be/792f8aab-23d4-4d29-b734-78ac747556be_1920x1080.jpg

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Kentucky, Wyoming, and Idaho would all join in. The remaining country would be forever Democrat, so they’d have little choice.

  58. @Hibernian

    The court’s WASP told them to go pound sand.
     
    Roberts is Catholic and likely at least part Irish.

    Replies: @Tom Rogers, @Audacious Epigone

    The reference was to Gorsuch.

  59. @follyofwar
    @dfordoom

    Peaceful separation could have worked in the US if the tyrannical Abe Lincoln had not been elected.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone

    Brexit is the most relevant, comparable case for American political dissolution. Rather than violence, I expect slow-rolling into exhaustion will be the biggest problem to overcome.

  60. @Audacious Epigone
    @Thomm

    i) The states are a continuum, with many states more accurately described as Purple, rather than red or blue. Life in a 48% blue state is no different on a day-to-day basis than life in a 52% blue state.

    Florida tipping red in the 2018 gubernatorial election has made a big difference in day-to-day life, but the general point is well taken.

    Re: ii), that's why I assume a crashing dollar will be the impetus for dissolution.

    Re: iii), politically separate nations need not be hostile to one another. The US and Canada aren't enemies.

    Re: iv), whites in urban areas vote very heavily Democrat now despite often being minorities.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Re: iii), politically separate nations need not be hostile to one another. The US and Canada aren’t enemies.

    Sorry AE but there really is so much wishful thinking there. The whole point of political dissolution of the US is that different ideological groups within the country hate each other’s guts so intensely that they’re incapable of living in the same country without being at each other’s throats. And you think they’re not going to continue to hate each other’s guts as separate countries?

    As separate countries with their own military and intelligence establishments which would give them the capability to really do damage to each other?

    And if they became separate nations there would be bitter economic rivalries to add fuel to the fire.

    And you think people like Soros would not stoke the flames of those national rivalries?

    We’re not just talking about ideological differences. We’re talking about ideological differences that are seen as being matters of moral righteousness versus moral evil. You don’t think that these newly separate nations would immediately start planning color revolution and regime change operations against each other? The US already does that to nations thousands of miles away that are zero threat to the US. These newly separate nations would be next door to each other and would be genuine existential threats to each other.

    The US already sees the very existence of other countries on other continents that do not toe the US ideological line as sufficient reason to try to destroy those nations.

    It wouldn’t be like the US and Canada. That’s pure fantasy. It would be more like the Middle East – endless wars and in between the wars there would be endless low-level warfare with assassinations and attempts to overthrow governments in neighbouring countries.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    And if they became separate nations there would be bitter economic rivalries to add fuel to the fire.
     
    I don't understand.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  61. I have a feeling support for the political dissolution we’ve long pushed for just became a lot more popular.

    no TradCon influencer would’ve been caught dead entertaining the idea of separation a year ago

    It’s a measure of the current level of despair. No TradCon influencer would have been so defeatist and despairing a year ago. It’s a feeling that the ideological war is hopelessly lost but that’s something that cannot be faced. So TradCons have now convinced themselves that even though they’ve been utterly defeated their enemies will be prepared to say, “Let’s call it a draw. We’ll give you half the country.”

    But they won’t. Those enemies will be satisfied with nothing less than total victory and total submission. “To crush your enemies – see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women!” That’s how those enemies view things.

    In other words the separation idea is just cope.

    I would love to see separation. I really would. But it’s just cope. They are not going to leave us alone to live our lives as we see fit. That’s not how they operate. They cannot even conceive of doing such a thing.

  62. @dfordoom
    @Audacious Epigone


    Re: iii), politically separate nations need not be hostile to one another. The US and Canada aren’t enemies.
     
    Sorry AE but there really is so much wishful thinking there. The whole point of political dissolution of the US is that different ideological groups within the country hate each other's guts so intensely that they're incapable of living in the same country without being at each other's throats. And you think they're not going to continue to hate each other's guts as separate countries?

    As separate countries with their own military and intelligence establishments which would give them the capability to really do damage to each other?

    And if they became separate nations there would be bitter economic rivalries to add fuel to the fire.

    And you think people like Soros would not stoke the flames of those national rivalries?

    We're not just talking about ideological differences. We're talking about ideological differences that are seen as being matters of moral righteousness versus moral evil. You don't think that these newly separate nations would immediately start planning color revolution and regime change operations against each other? The US already does that to nations thousands of miles away that are zero threat to the US. These newly separate nations would be next door to each other and would be genuine existential threats to each other.

    The US already sees the very existence of other countries on other continents that do not toe the US ideological line as sufficient reason to try to destroy those nations.

    It wouldn't be like the US and Canada. That's pure fantasy. It would be more like the Middle East - endless wars and in between the wars there would be endless low-level warfare with assassinations and attempts to overthrow governments in neighbouring countries.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    And if they became separate nations there would be bitter economic rivalries to add fuel to the fire.

    I don’t understand.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund



    And if they became separate nations there would be bitter economic rivalries to add fuel to the fire.
     
    I don’t understand.
     
    For starters, control of the US dollar.
  63. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    And if they became separate nations there would be bitter economic rivalries to add fuel to the fire.
     
    I don't understand.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    And if they became separate nations there would be bitter economic rivalries to add fuel to the fire.

    I don’t understand.

    For starters, control of the US dollar.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS