You illustrate the outcome of a red/blue split with graphic and terrifying possibilities. Like Donna, commenting below, I wonder how in the world the red philosophy can coexist peacefully with the nearly polar opposite blue philosophy. Aside from the fact that the blues don't want cooperation, there is no room for compromise because the differences conservative reds have with the progressive blues are not those with which most of us believe can be solved through compromise. We may have come to the end of the line where living together as a united country is no longer possible. One side will conquer the other and to the victor go the spoils.
Completely agree. In the past (30+ years ago), D's and R's largely wanted the same things, but had different opinions on how best to get there. But now, the two sides don't even have remotely the same goals.
The D's want socialism, an end to individuality, conformity of thought enforced by fascist control over speech, the death of white people, open borders, no objective truth, and to create a permanent serfdom of peasants in service to our "elite."
The R's want essentially the opposite. Freedom of speech and expression, the right to self defense, free markets, actual fairness and equality, outcomes based on effort and ability (as opposed to the grossly unfair and incentive-killing "equity," where everyone gets the same crumbs of a very small pie -- except the "elites," of course), the rule of law, closed borders with a reasonable but limited immigration policy, and a government that largely leaves citizens alone.
How does anyone find compromise in this scenario? How much socialism should those who know better be forced to accept (we've already accepted far too much, and it is almost guaranteed to get much, much worse over the next few years)? Is it not better to begin work now on how the break ourselves up via a mediated "divorce," instead of waiting for it to be forced on us via a devastating Civil War?
this may have to be. What do you suggest ? we are ethical, intellectual and spiritual aliens to each other. How much idle chit chat can characterize a relationships ? How does a person of goodwill or fundamental decency allow themselves to continue to think there is some common ground when we have a political class that believes as it does ? How do you square cooperation with a party which has a sitting governor in VA a physician who is calmly talking about killing a born alive full term infant a mother does not wish to have responsibility for ? This could have been averted for the gov was run by constitutional standards and most decisions were on a local states level allowing for some "detente". Mark Levin talks of this as it would have allowed citizens to choose where they wished to live. Warned by Adams I believe this form of gov. could only survive with a moral citizenry. Where are those ? I live in the belly of the beast brooklyn which has transformed into a radical chic borough I saw Park slope transition into a hot bed of marxism where today there are "struggle session" al la chairman Mao groups being held. what in the name of heaven is there to talk about ? I cannot tolerate this and neither should any decent moral individual. I have on friend in area who is a world renowned visionary. She has mentored many for decades and calls me crying from time to time about what she is experiencing telling me I am the only person she knows who understands. Country was built from ground up against impossible odds and it looks like it will have to be again.
The idea of splitting is to me a non-starter. People live locally. You alluded to this. Many states are like my state of Michigan, where the vast majority of the 83 counties are red. We're called blue because of several populated counties. That reality exists across the land. Geographically, it just can't work.
But if there is to be a divorce, it is the side who changed and abandoned our homestead and principles that should leave.
The people who want America to remain America get to keep the house.
Except for portions of the coasts, the blues simply cannot have contiguous land masses. They'll have to make due with being a collection of city-states.
I see civil war as more likely than splitting because people are attached to their native localities, the earth they actually walk on. It would not go well.
I don't disagree with that analysis, which is why I think we are headed in the direction of a split. However, even if the odds are against it, I do think there's time to turn around and that everyone should be aware of the consequences if it goes that far. A divorce would be a miserable process for everyone under the best of circumstances.
You illustrate the outcome of a red/blue split with graphic and terrifying possibilities. Like Donna, commenting below, I wonder how in the world the red philosophy can coexist peacefully with the nearly polar opposite blue philosophy. Aside from the fact that the blues don't want cooperation, there is no room for compromise because the differences conservative reds have with the progressive blues are not those with which most of us believe can be solved through compromise. We may have come to the end of the line where living together as a united country is no longer possible. One side will conquer the other and to the victor go the spoils.
Completely agree. In the past (30+ years ago), D's and R's largely wanted the same things, but had different opinions on how best to get there. But now, the two sides don't even have remotely the same goals.
The D's want socialism, an end to individuality, conformity of thought enforced by fascist control over speech, the death of white people, open borders, no objective truth, and to create a permanent serfdom of peasants in service to our "elite."
The R's want essentially the opposite. Freedom of speech and expression, the right to self defense, free markets, actual fairness and equality, outcomes based on effort and ability (as opposed to the grossly unfair and incentive-killing "equity," where everyone gets the same crumbs of a very small pie -- except the "elites," of course), the rule of law, closed borders with a reasonable but limited immigration policy, and a government that largely leaves citizens alone.
How does anyone find compromise in this scenario? How much socialism should those who know better be forced to accept (we've already accepted far too much, and it is almost guaranteed to get much, much worse over the next few years)? Is it not better to begin work now on how the break ourselves up via a mediated "divorce," instead of waiting for it to be forced on us via a devastating Civil War?
this may have to be. What do you suggest ? we are ethical, intellectual and spiritual aliens to each other. How much idle chit chat can characterize a relationships ? How does a person of goodwill or fundamental decency allow themselves to continue to think there is some common ground when we have a political class that believes as it does ? How do you square cooperation with a party which has a sitting governor in VA a physician who is calmly talking about killing a born alive full term infant a mother does not wish to have responsibility for ? This could have been averted for the gov was run by constitutional standards and most decisions were on a local states level allowing for some "detente". Mark Levin talks of this as it would have allowed citizens to choose where they wished to live. Warned by Adams I believe this form of gov. could only survive with a moral citizenry. Where are those ? I live in the belly of the beast brooklyn which has transformed into a radical chic borough I saw Park slope transition into a hot bed of marxism where today there are "struggle session" al la chairman Mao groups being held. what in the name of heaven is there to talk about ? I cannot tolerate this and neither should any decent moral individual. I have on friend in area who is a world renowned visionary. She has mentored many for decades and calls me crying from time to time about what she is experiencing telling me I am the only person she knows who understands. Country was built from ground up against impossible odds and it looks like it will have to be again.
The idea of splitting is to me a non-starter. People live locally. You alluded to this. Many states are like my state of Michigan, where the vast majority of the 83 counties are red. We're called blue because of several populated counties. That reality exists across the land. Geographically, it just can't work.
But if there is to be a divorce, it is the side who changed and abandoned our homestead and principles that should leave.
The people who want America to remain America get to keep the house.
Except for portions of the coasts, the blues simply cannot have contiguous land masses. They'll have to make due with being a collection of city-states.
I see civil war as more likely than splitting because people are attached to their native localities, the earth they actually walk on. It would not go well.
Texit would be a huge win for the other 49, no downside
When one group wants to destroy the current America and the other wants to preserve it---there seems to be NO middle ground!
I don't disagree with that analysis, which is why I think we are headed in the direction of a split. However, even if the odds are against it, I do think there's time to turn around and that everyone should be aware of the consequences if it goes that far. A divorce would be a miserable process for everyone under the best of circumstances.
Agreed.