This “tantrum encapsulated and escalated a pattern of angry incompetence from Senator Schumer,” McConnell complained.
McConnell warned that Schumer’s “childish behavior only further alienated the Republican members who helped facilitate this short-term patch. It has poisoned the well even further.”
In light of Schumer’s “hysterics ... I will not be a party to any future effort to mitigate the consequences of future Democratic mismanagement,” McConnell concluded.
Former chief White House strategist Steve Bannon has rebuffed a congressional subpoena related to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol Complex by claiming executive privilege through his attorney.
The refusal came by way of a letter sent to the select committee by Robert Costello. In the letter, Bannon’s lawyer said that former president Donald Trump asked his former aides to assert privilege and deny the subpoena requests for documents and testimony.
“It is therefore clear to us that since the executive privileges belong to President Trump, and he has, through his counsel, announced his intention to assert those executive privileges enumerated above, we must accept his direction and honor his invocation of executive privilege,” Costello wrote. “Until these issues are resolved, we are unable to respond to your request for documents and testimony.”
“We will comply with the directions of the courts, when and if they rule on these claims of both executive and attorney client privileges,” the two-page letter concludes. “Since these privileges belong to President Trump and not to Mr. Bannon, until these issues are resolved, Mr. Bannon is legally unable to comply with your subpoena requests for documents and testimony.”
Bannon, however, was not working in the executive branch when the pro-Trump mob attacked the national seat of legislative government.
Lawyers generally dismissed his claims of executive privilege.
_______
The big problem is that if they have him arrested for defying the testify under oath, if the Republicans regain control of the house and Senate they will start arresting Democrats .
We would be seen as a third world government..
Despite being the most powerful nation on earth.
The Chinese and again the Russians will start to recover the Soviet Union nations because Trump would withdraw from NATO.
And the polling data shows a significant percentage support session in the Republican base.
When is the goat fucker going to start acting like an american that cares for the country and takes the shot?????? Pussy too afraid to do the correct thing......BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! And after the shot....he can then find a job and stop being an idiot leech to society!!!!!
In theory... it would work. But it wouldn't take long before the socialist country collapsed. I mean how many really "rich" people would choose to live in one of the states that would likely be raising their taxes by double when they could just move to an original country state. Certainly some would probably choose to do so, but you would see a huge migration of others (and most corporate headquarters) moving from the liberal country to the conservative country.
But also... in reality the most conservative or liberal of areas still have at a huge amount of people required to move to another state to remain in their own political affiliation. I would say that somewhere between 40-45 percent of Americans would find their own state on the wrong side (in their opinion). So people would have to move or be completely unhappy politically.
You also do open yourself up to the idea of extremism on both sides. Although if the conservative original united states stuck to everything, they would still have the same court systems, constitution, USSC, etc, etc. That (I would suspect) might keep more liberals from moving out of the original states and into the new states (where who knows what might happen).
crowded field is competing to replace Sen. Rob Portman (R–Ohio), who will retire when his term ends next year. Among the Republicans currently campaigning for their party's nomination are former state Treasurer Josh Mandel and Hillbilly Elegy memoirist J.D. Vance. The race has laid bare some ugly aspects of our political moment.
Mandel previously ran, twice, against Ohio's other senator, Democrat Sherrod Brown. Vance, a Yale-educated lawyer turned Silicon Valley venture capitalist, has no previous political experience, but he does have the backing of former boss and fellow venture capitalist Peter Thiel. One thing the two candidates have in common is the utter shamelessness with which they stumble over themselves trying to appeal to former President Donald Trump's voting base.
Vance, who infamously insisted in 2016 that he would "never vote for Trump," said after launching his Senate campaign this summer that since Trump is "the leader of this movement…I need to just suck it up and support him." Since then, he has moved deeper and deeper into the authoritarian nationalist wing of the American right, whose members want to use state power to bend society to their will. Last month, for example, he declared that nonprofits like the Ford Foundation are "fundamentally cancers on society" and called for the government to "seize…their assets" and redistribute the proceeds.
Yet Mandel apparently considers Vance a squish, calling him "a RINO and a Never Trumper." He repeatedly has called for the 2020 election to be "decertified," claiming that Trump actually won. While Republicans in Congress have objected to a larger investigation of the January 6 events at the U.S. Capitol, when pro-Trump rioters tried to halt the counting of votes, and they don't tend to dwell on the events themselves. Mandel, by contrast, referred to his fellow Ohio Republican, Rep. Anthony Gonzalez, as a "traitor" after Gonzalez voted to impeach the then-president over his behavior before and during the event.
In his first run against Brown in 2012, Mandel backed Mitt Romney, that year's Republican candidate for president; now he stakes out positions on the far end of the Trumpian right. Vance, meanwhile, dispenses bromides with all the conviction of an understudy shoved onstage at the last minute. Days after announcing his candidacy, erstwhile San Franciscan Vance tweeted a "serious question" about New York City: "I have heard it's disgusting and violent there. But is it like Walking Dead Season 1 or Season 4?"
Both candidates seem to be doing the same thing: playacting what they think the Trump base wants to see.
Rich Lowery pretty much agrees with you and me. Breaking Up Is Hard To Do
Rich Lowry is editor of National Review and a contributing editor with Politico Magazine.
Divorce usually isn’t a good idea, and that’s especially true of a nearly 250-year-old continental nation.
The notion of a national breakup has long simmered as a fringe argument, but it is increasingly popular in certain precincts of the political right and has gained at least some traction with partisans of both sides. A recent survey by the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia found that about 50 percent of Donald Trump voters and 40 percent of Joe Biden voters agreed to some extent with the proposition that the country should split up, with either red or blue states seceding.
Last year, there were dueling secession books. From the right, George Mason University's F.H. Buckley published American Secession, arguing that “the United States is ripe for secession” and “there’s much to be said for an American breakup” (although Buckley favors what he calls “home rule” for the states, a new constitutional compact giving them much more authority). From the left, The Nation’s Richard Kreitner wrote Break It Up, contending that “we must finally finish the work of Reconstruction or give up on the Union entirely.”
But a cadre of apocalyptic writers on the right, who believe the country is too far gone to save, has become obsessed with a Secession 2.0 that would cleave red America from blue and allow the former to escape the ever-rising tide of woke insanity.
Substacker David Reaboi wrote a post the other day titled, “National Divorce Is Expensive, But It’s Worth Every Penny,” urging “Red America to think about economic and cultural autonomy for itself, and what it would take to get there.” Texas state Rep. Kyle Biedermann has been agitating for so-called Texit, and Allen West, the former chair of the Texas GOP and now a candidate for governor, has talked of secession.
There is no doubt the country is deeply riven along political, cultural and religious lines, although it’s not obvious that the poisonous contention of our era is worse than that of, say, the 1790s or the 1970s — political and cultural conflict is endemic to such a large, loud, diverse democratic country as ours.
That said, a National Divorce has nothing to recommend it. The practical obstacles are obvious and insuperable, and the likely effects would be very unwelcome to its proponents. If an insufficient patriotism is one of the ills of contemporary America, National Divorce would prescribe a strong dose of arsenic as a cure. It would burn down America to save America, or at least those parts of it considered salvageable.
The deleterious effects of a breakup would be enormous. A disaggregated United States would be instantly less powerful. Indeed, Russia and China would be delighted and presumably believe that we’d deserve to experience the equivalent of the crackup of the Soviet Union or the Qing dynasty, respectively. Among the catastrophes you wish on an adversary, secessionist movements potentially leading to civil conflict are high on the list.
The economic consequences could be severe. The United States of America is a sprawling, continentwide free trade zone, creating a vast domestic market that makes us all better off. Exchanging that for what might be a market Balkanized by state or region would be a major loss.
Finally, the United States foundering on its domestic divisions would be a significant blow to the prestige of liberal democracy. Abraham Lincoln worried about this effect the first time around, and it might be even worse now. This wouldn’t be a fledgling democracy unable to hold it together, but what had seemed a stable republic with the most durable political institutions on the planet.
Then, there’s the question of how this is supposed to work exactly. Lincoln warned of the physical impossibility of secession when the Mason-Dixon Line was a more-or-less ready line of demarcation. How would it play out now, with conservatives and progressives amply represented in every state in the Union? Even a county-by-county map of California’s presidential election results has swathes of red, and even Alabama’s has blotches of blue.
If there were to be sovereign pure red and blue places, this wouldn’t look like the relatively neat split of the United States into two in the 1860s, but more like post-Peace of Westphalia Europe, with hundreds of different entities.
Some proponents of National Divorce say not to worry — it can all be worked out amicably without any unpleasantness, like, you know, the war that killed roughly 700,000 people the last time a region of the U.S. tried to secede. But if we are going to split up because we are irreparably divided and can’t even agree on bathroom policies or pronouns, how are we going to agree to divvy up our territory and resources — the kind of things real wars are fought over all the time?
It would matter, by the way, who gets control of the federal government, the most powerful organization on Earth. It has 1.3 million people under arms and a stockpile of 3,800 nuclear warheads. Whether this, not to mention federal lands and other assets, accrues to red or blue America would, to understate it, be a matter of considerable haggling.
On top of all this, red-state secession would be self-defeating. Let’s say Texas actually left. That’s 40 electoral votes off the national map for Republicans. In 2020, with no Texas, Trump could have won Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, and still fallen short of an electoral-vote majority. In other words, Texit would bequeath control of the rest of the country to Democrats.
On the other hand, Texas isn’t quite as ruby red as it used to be. It could go to the trouble of seceding and then one day find itself governed by the very Democrats it hoped to leave behind in the rest of the former United States.
Besides, would the rest of the country really be willing to watch a state of 29 million people that represents the ninth-largest economy in the world go its own way? Simply say goodbye to a place that accounts for almost 40 percent of the country’s oil production, about 25 percent of its natural gas production, 10 percent of its manufacturing and 20 percent of its exports, more than any other state? Bid adieu to the country’s largest transportation network and 11 deep-water ports, including the Port of Houston, one of the largest in the world and the busiest in the U.S. in terms of foreign waterborne tonnage?
No country that retains an ounce of rationality and self-respect would let such an economic jewel and powerhouse slip away.
Meanwhile, red-state secession would create a barrier against federal intrusion, but would it actually stem the cultural tide? Would the college professors in these places be less woke? Would the newsrooms be more conservative? Would the corporations be less inclined to follow fashionable national trends? Would people in the state stop using social media, no longer do Google searches and cease consuming national media?
It seems doubtful.
Secession, of course, isn’t close to going mainstream yet, thankfully. The real impetus for the talk of a breakup is despair. It constitutes giving up — giving up on convincing our fellow Americans, giving up on our common national project, giving up on our birthright.
This is an impulse to be resisted. Breaking up is hard to do, and quitting on America is — or should be — unforgivable.
The most powerful economic regions would not separate.
Most of the other states would be in poverty or economic catastrophes.
Besides, would the rest of the country really be willing to watch a state of 29 million people that represents the ninth-largest economy in the world go its own way? Simply say goodbye to a place that accounts for almost 40 percent of the country’s oil production, about 25 percent of its natural gas production, 10 percent of its manufacturing and 20 percent of its exports, more than any other state? Bid adieu to the country’s largest transportation network and 11 deep-water ports, including the Port of Houston, one of the largest in the world and the busiest in the U.S. in terms of foreign waterborne tonnage?
There’s the point. The red states do not need the Northeast, West Coast and a couple upper Midwest states. You guys can’t feed, clothe, house or turn the lights on without us.
'I see a civil war coming': Trump supporter rages at government before Des Moines rally
Tom Boggioni
October 09, 2021
Speaking with an NBC correspondent prior to Donald Trump's rally in Des Moines on Saturday, one attendee raged at Democrats and Republicans alike and bluntly stated she sees violence -- once again -- on the horizon.
Speaking with NBC's Gary Grumbach before the rally began, Lori Levi -- a pro-Trump merchandise vendor who travels from rally to rally -- started off by stating, "I think the Republicans are about as weak as they possibly could be in Congress."
"You have maybe six that are worth their salt," she continued. " [Republican Senators] Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, and two or three others, the rest of them are just the same as the Democrats. they've been there too long. They're establishment. They don't care about the American people because they're in their elite little tower."
"So we're just sick of it, you know, and we're not going to take it anymore," she continued. "I see a civil war coming -- I do. I see civil war coming."
"A civil war coming, that's what she said and that is a sentiment that we are hearing people here on the ground at today's Trump rally" Grumbach repeated for MSNBC host Alex Witt.
"There’s the point. The red states do not need the Northeast, West Coast and a couple upper Midwest states. You guys can’t feed, clothe, house or turn the lights on without us."
Richard Lowry (/ˈlaʊri/; born 1968)[1] is an American writer who is the editor of National Review, an American conservative news and opinion magazine. Lowry became editor of National Review in 1997
Donald Trump appears to be fixated on pushing his "Big Lie" of election fraud.
At a Saturday rally at the Iowa State Fair, Trump bragged about refusing to concede, complained about the Supreme Court not overturning the election, and revealed that he pushes the conspiracy theory because of the applause it receives.
"Mitch McConnell said we have to get back to business. Mitch McConnell should have challenged that election," Trump said, even though he lost.
Trump went on to allege that Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer would have challenged the election.
"We had plenty of material to challenge the election. He should have challenged the election. Schumer would have challenged the election."
"Mitch McConnell did not have the courage to challenge the election. He is only a leader because he raises a lot of money and gives it to senators, that is his only form of leadership," Trump said. "He should have challenged the election."
There’s the point. The red states do not need the Northeast, West Coast and a couple upper Midwest states. You guys can’t feed, clothe, house or turn the lights on without us.
Precisely. NY State is essentially a microcosm of the rest of the nation. Those south of the Tappan Zee bridge fall into each of the feed, clothe, house categories. Helpless. We in Upstate NY have openly contemplated breaking the state in two for decades. And while never rising above a conversation, one look at the electoral map of NY tells you all you need to know about the state of our state and the state of our politics..
NYC is a net DRAIN on the rest of NYS. Our upstate tax $$$ subsidize virtually everything in NYC. The latest legal battle of note was when NYC essentially sued Upstate to force us to pay for their failed NYC schools.
So break the country in two. Inside of a decade the Blue states would be in complete collapse and the rest of us would have to wall them OUT. Or fucking shoot them. Their choice.
34 comments:
LMAO LMAO LMAO some of them are very good beers.
Start your own micro brewery with Sleepy Joe Beer
This “tantrum encapsulated and escalated a pattern of angry incompetence from Senator Schumer,” McConnell complained.
McConnell warned that Schumer’s “childish behavior only further alienated the Republican members who helped facilitate this short-term patch. It has poisoned the well even further.”
In light of Schumer’s “hysterics ... I will not be a party to any future effort to mitigate the consequences of future Democratic mismanagement,” McConnell concluded.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/mitch-mcconnell-tells-biden-wont-030534766.html
The slow moving coup
https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/1446700866778456066?t=PYV5cQOjwkbpZCic_TUjqg&s=19
No intelligence.
FJB
Let's go Brandon
The slow moving coup
More like TDS.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/10/08/fiona-hill-book-donald-trump-515660
It's not TDS or anything like that.
I am very concerned about our country.
You won't read anything except right wing media websites.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/10/08/fiona-hill-book-donald-trump-515660
Former chief White House strategist Steve Bannon has rebuffed a congressional subpoena related to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol Complex by claiming executive privilege through his attorney.
The refusal came by way of a letter sent to the select committee by Robert Costello. In the letter, Bannon’s lawyer said that former president Donald Trump asked his former aides to assert privilege and deny the subpoena requests for documents and testimony.
“It is therefore clear to us that since the executive privileges belong to President Trump, and he has, through his counsel, announced his intention to assert those executive privileges enumerated above, we must accept his direction and honor his invocation of executive privilege,” Costello wrote. “Until these issues are resolved, we are unable to respond to your request for documents and testimony.”
“We will comply with the directions of the courts, when and if they rule on these claims of both executive and attorney client privileges,” the two-page letter concludes. “Since these privileges belong to President Trump and not to Mr. Bannon, until these issues are resolved, Mr. Bannon is legally unable to comply with your subpoena requests for documents and testimony.”
Bannon, however, was not working in the executive branch when the pro-Trump mob attacked the national seat of legislative government.
Lawyers generally dismissed his claims of executive privilege.
_______
The big problem is that if they have him arrested for defying the testify under oath, if the Republicans regain control of the house and Senate they will start arresting Democrats .
We would be seen as a third world government..
Despite being the most powerful nation on earth.
The Chinese and again the Russians will start to recover the Soviet Union nations because Trump would withdraw from NATO.
And the polling data shows a significant percentage support session in the Republican base.
Bullshit Lie
"I am very concerned about our country." Broke Alky
You will die at 4th Street Medicaid Acres.
Roger do you do ypur own grocery shopping for all of ypur "@ home" meals?
Unelectable Affirmative Action vp.
She told biden to fuck off she is not working on the Border.
"Kamala Harris skips US-Mexico border-security meeting, goes to New Jersey instead"
Do you agree with him?
https://amgreatness.com/2021/10/08/the-great-divorce-divided-we-stand/
We are a strong united Republic.
You are a sissy HalfBaked
When is the goat fucker going to start acting like an american that cares for the country and takes the shot?????? Pussy too afraid to do the correct thing......BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! And after the shot....he can then find a job and stop being an idiot leech to society!!!!!
https://amgreatness.com/2021/10/08/the-great-divorce-divided-we-stand/
In theory... it would work. But it wouldn't take long before the socialist country collapsed. I mean how many really "rich" people would choose to live in one of the states that would likely be raising their taxes by double when they could just move to an original country state. Certainly some would probably choose to do so, but you would see a huge migration of others (and most corporate headquarters) moving from the liberal country to the conservative country.
But also... in reality the most conservative or liberal of areas still have at a huge amount of people required to move to another state to remain in their own political affiliation. I would say that somewhere between 40-45 percent of Americans would find their own state on the wrong side (in their opinion). So people would have to move or be completely unhappy politically.
You also do open yourself up to the idea of extremism on both sides. Although if the conservative original united states stuck to everything, they would still have the same court systems, constitution, USSC, etc, etc. That (I would suspect) might keep more liberals from moving out of the original states and into the new states (where who knows what might happen).
Bannon, however, was not working in the executive branch when the pro-Trump mob attacked the national seat of legislative government
So it begs the question why he was subpoenaed in the first.
Bannon, however, was not working in the executive branch when the pro-Trump mob attacked the national seat of legislative government
Well I can think of a few Democrats who deserved to be arrested. Starting with Adam Schiff.
The destruction of socialism is the answer.
Craziest.
crowded field is competing to replace Sen. Rob Portman (R–Ohio), who will retire when his term ends next year. Among the Republicans currently campaigning for their party's nomination are former state Treasurer Josh Mandel and Hillbilly Elegy memoirist J.D. Vance. The race has laid bare some ugly aspects of our political moment.
Mandel previously ran, twice, against Ohio's other senator, Democrat Sherrod Brown. Vance, a Yale-educated lawyer turned Silicon Valley venture capitalist, has no previous political experience, but he does have the backing of former boss and fellow venture capitalist Peter Thiel. One thing the two candidates have in common is the utter shamelessness with which they stumble over themselves trying to appeal to former President Donald Trump's voting base.
Vance, who infamously insisted in 2016 that he would "never vote for Trump," said after launching his Senate campaign this summer that since Trump is "the leader of this movement…I need to just suck it up and support him." Since then, he has moved deeper and deeper into the authoritarian nationalist wing of the American right, whose members want to use state power to bend society to their will. Last month, for example, he declared that nonprofits like the Ford Foundation are "fundamentally cancers on society" and called for the government to "seize…their assets" and redistribute the proceeds.
Yet Mandel apparently considers Vance a squish, calling him "a RINO and a Never Trumper." He repeatedly has called for the 2020 election to be "decertified," claiming that Trump actually won. While Republicans in Congress have objected to a larger investigation of the January 6 events at the U.S. Capitol, when pro-Trump rioters tried to halt the counting of votes, and they don't tend to dwell on the events themselves. Mandel, by contrast, referred to his fellow Ohio Republican, Rep. Anthony Gonzalez, as a "traitor" after Gonzalez voted to impeach the then-president over his behavior before and during the event.
In his first run against Brown in 2012, Mandel backed Mitt Romney, that year's Republican candidate for president; now he stakes out positions on the far end of the Trumpian right. Vance, meanwhile, dispenses bromides with all the conviction of an understudy shoved onstage at the last minute. Days after announcing his candidacy, erstwhile San Franciscan Vance tweeted a "serious question" about New York City: "I have heard it's disgusting and violent there. But is it like Walking Dead Season 1 or Season 4?"
Both candidates seem to be doing the same thing: playacting what they think the Trump base wants to see.
In other words you are a traitor now.
DAWGS!!!
Rich Lowery pretty much agrees with you and me. Breaking Up Is Hard To Do
Rich Lowry is editor of National Review and a contributing editor with Politico Magazine.
Divorce usually isn’t a good idea, and that’s especially true of a nearly 250-year-old continental nation.
The notion of a national breakup has long simmered as a fringe argument, but it is increasingly popular in certain precincts of the political right and has gained at least some traction with partisans of both sides. A recent survey by the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia found that about 50 percent of Donald Trump voters and 40 percent of Joe Biden voters agreed to some extent with the proposition that the country should split up, with either red or blue states seceding.
Last year, there were dueling secession books. From the right, George Mason University's F.H. Buckley published American Secession, arguing that “the United States is ripe for secession” and “there’s much to be said for an American breakup” (although Buckley favors what he calls “home rule” for the states, a new constitutional compact giving them much more authority). From the left, The Nation’s Richard Kreitner wrote Break It Up, contending that “we must finally finish the work of Reconstruction or give up on the Union entirely.”
But a cadre of apocalyptic writers on the right, who believe the country is too far gone to save, has become obsessed with a Secession 2.0 that would cleave red America from blue and allow the former to escape the ever-rising tide of woke insanity.
Substacker David Reaboi wrote a post the other day titled, “National Divorce Is Expensive, But It’s Worth Every Penny,” urging “Red America to think about economic and cultural autonomy for itself, and what it would take to get there.” Texas state Rep. Kyle Biedermann has been agitating for so-called Texit, and Allen West, the former chair of the Texas GOP and now a candidate for governor, has talked of secession.
There is no doubt the country is deeply riven along political, cultural and religious lines, although it’s not obvious that the poisonous contention of our era is worse than that of, say, the 1790s or the 1970s — political and cultural conflict is endemic to such a large, loud, diverse democratic country as ours.
That said, a National Divorce has nothing to recommend it. The practical obstacles are obvious and insuperable, and the likely effects would be very unwelcome to its proponents. If an insufficient patriotism is one of the ills of contemporary America, National Divorce would prescribe a strong dose of arsenic as a cure. It would burn down America to save America, or at least those parts of it considered salvageable.
The deleterious effects of a breakup would be enormous. A disaggregated United States would be instantly less powerful. Indeed, Russia and China would be delighted and presumably believe that we’d deserve to experience the equivalent of the crackup of the Soviet Union or the Qing dynasty, respectively. Among the catastrophes you wish on an adversary, secessionist movements potentially leading to civil conflict are high on the list.
The economic consequences could be severe. The United States of America is a sprawling, continentwide free trade zone, creating a vast domestic market that makes us all better off. Exchanging that for what might be a market Balkanized by state or region would be a major loss.
Finally, the United States foundering on its domestic divisions would be a significant blow to the prestige of liberal democracy. Abraham Lincoln worried about this effect the first time around, and it might be even worse now. This wouldn’t be a fledgling democracy unable to hold it together, but what had seemed a stable republic with the most durable political institutions on the planet.
Then, there’s the question of how this is supposed to work exactly. Lincoln warned of the physical impossibility of secession when the Mason-Dixon Line was a more-or-less ready line of demarcation. How would it play out now, with conservatives and progressives amply represented in every state in the Union? Even a county-by-county map of California’s presidential election results has swathes of red, and even Alabama’s has blotches of blue.
If there were to be sovereign pure red and blue places, this wouldn’t look like the relatively neat split of the United States into two in the 1860s, but more like post-Peace of Westphalia Europe, with hundreds of different entities.
Some proponents of National Divorce say not to worry — it can all be worked out amicably without any unpleasantness, like, you know, the war that killed roughly 700,000 people the last time a region of the U.S. tried to secede. But if we are going to split up because we are irreparably divided and can’t even agree on bathroom policies or pronouns, how are we going to agree to divvy up our territory and resources — the kind of things real wars are fought over all the time?
It would matter, by the way, who gets control of the federal government, the most powerful organization on Earth. It has 1.3 million people under arms and a stockpile of 3,800 nuclear warheads. Whether this, not to mention federal lands and other assets, accrues to red or blue America would, to understate it, be a matter of considerable haggling.
On top of all this, red-state secession would be self-defeating. Let’s say Texas actually left. That’s 40 electoral votes off the national map for Republicans. In 2020, with no Texas, Trump could have won Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, and still fallen short of an electoral-vote majority. In other words, Texit would bequeath control of the rest of the country to Democrats.
On the other hand, Texas isn’t quite as ruby red as it used to be. It could go to the trouble of seceding and then one day find itself governed by the very Democrats it hoped to leave behind in the rest of the former United States.
Besides, would the rest of the country really be willing to watch a state of 29 million people that represents the ninth-largest economy in the world go its own way? Simply say goodbye to a place that accounts for almost 40 percent of the country’s oil production, about 25 percent of its natural gas production, 10 percent of its manufacturing and 20 percent of its exports, more than any other state? Bid adieu to the country’s largest transportation network and 11 deep-water ports, including the Port of Houston, one of the largest in the world and the busiest in the U.S. in terms of foreign waterborne tonnage?
No country that retains an ounce of rationality and self-respect would let such an economic jewel and powerhouse slip away.
Meanwhile, red-state secession would create a barrier against federal intrusion, but would it actually stem the cultural tide? Would the college professors in these places be less woke? Would the newsrooms be more conservative? Would the corporations be less inclined to follow fashionable national trends? Would people in the state stop using social media, no longer do Google searches and cease consuming national media?
It seems doubtful.
Secession, of course, isn’t close to going mainstream yet, thankfully. The real impetus for the talk of a breakup is despair. It constitutes giving up — giving up on convincing our fellow Americans, giving up on our common national project, giving up on our birthright.
This is an impulse to be resisted. Breaking up is hard to do, and quitting on America is — or should be — unforgivable.
The most powerful economic regions would not separate.
Most of the other states would be in poverty or economic catastrophes.
Like Kansas
Besides, would the rest of the country really be willing to watch a state of 29 million people that represents the ninth-largest economy in the world go its own way? Simply say goodbye to a place that accounts for almost 40 percent of the country’s oil production, about 25 percent of its natural gas production, 10 percent of its manufacturing and 20 percent of its exports, more than any other state? Bid adieu to the country’s largest transportation network and 11 deep-water ports, including the Port of Houston, one of the largest in the world and the busiest in the U.S. in terms of foreign waterborne tonnage?
There’s the point. The red states do not need the Northeast, West Coast and a couple upper Midwest states. You guys can’t feed, clothe, house or turn the lights on without us.
'I see a civil war coming': Trump supporter rages at government before Des Moines rally
Tom Boggioni
October 09, 2021
Speaking with an NBC correspondent prior to Donald Trump's rally in Des Moines on Saturday, one attendee raged at Democrats and Republicans alike and bluntly stated she sees violence -- once again -- on the horizon.
Speaking with NBC's Gary Grumbach before the rally began, Lori Levi -- a pro-Trump merchandise vendor who travels from rally to rally -- started off by stating, "I think the Republicans are about as weak as they possibly could be in Congress."
"You have maybe six that are worth their salt," she continued. " [Republican Senators] Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, and two or three others, the rest of them are just the same as the Democrats. they've been there too long. They're establishment. They don't care about the American people because they're in their elite little tower."
"So we're just sick of it, you know, and we're not going to take it anymore," she continued. "I see a civil war coming -- I do. I see civil war coming."
"A civil war coming, that's what she said and that is a sentiment that we are hearing people here on the ground at today's Trump rally" Grumbach repeated for MSNBC host Alex Witt.
https://www.rawstory.com/president-donald-trump-civil-war-2655263501/
"There’s the point. The red states do not need the Northeast, West Coast and a couple upper Midwest states. You guys can’t feed, clothe, house or turn the lights on without us."
Cali is spot on.
Roger is unable to respond, per ussual.
https://linksharing.samsungcloud.com/hnjoSbSdtCGv
Take it up with
Richard Lowry (/ˈlaʊri/; born 1968)[1] is an American writer who is the editor of National Review, an American conservative news and opinion magazine. Lowry became editor of National Review in 1997
Moscow Mitch is traitor according to King Trump 1
Donald Trump appears to be fixated on pushing his "Big Lie" of election fraud.
At a Saturday rally at the Iowa State Fair, Trump bragged about refusing to concede, complained about the Supreme Court not overturning the election, and revealed that he pushes the conspiracy theory because of the applause it receives.
"Mitch McConnell said we have to get back to business. Mitch McConnell should have challenged that election," Trump said, even though he lost.
Trump went on to allege that Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer would have challenged the election.
"We had plenty of material to challenge the election. He should have challenged the election. Schumer would have challenged the election."
"Mitch McConnell did not have the courage to challenge the election. He is only a leader because he raises a lot of money and gives it to senators, that is his only form of leadership," Trump said. "He should have challenged the election."
There’s the point. The red states do not need the Northeast, West Coast and a couple upper Midwest states. You guys can’t feed, clothe, house or turn the lights on without us.
Precisely. NY State is essentially a microcosm of the rest of the nation. Those south of the Tappan Zee bridge fall into each of the feed, clothe, house categories. Helpless. We in Upstate NY have openly contemplated breaking the state in two for decades. And while never rising above a conversation, one look at the electoral map of NY tells you all you need to know about the state of our state and the state of our politics..
NYC is a net DRAIN on the rest of NYS. Our upstate tax $$$ subsidize virtually everything in NYC. The latest legal battle of note was when NYC essentially sued Upstate to force us to pay for their failed NYC schools.
So break the country in two. Inside of a decade the Blue states would be in complete collapse and the rest of us would have to wall them OUT. Or fucking shoot them. Their choice.
Post a Comment