California movement to secede from US cleared to gather signatures

I think your 'horseshit' quote is with respect to California's future, not with respect to how ethnic bloodletting has started in other countries. And if so, you may be
right. The middle-class whites of California will simply be the top of the sort of 'pigmentocracy' that characterizes Latin America as a whole (to borrow a word from Amy Chua) -- there, there is little 'racism' as such ... what there is, is an ascending scale of skin color, with the people having the darkest skin on bottom, and those with the lightest, on top. A lot better than the Belgian Congo or Zimbabwe!

As for Hitler: yes, it was the Russians who defeated him, suffering a hundred deaths for every American death. But getting himself in an unnecessary war with the US was a very bad move, and completely pointless. If he had not invaded Russia -- which he did six months before his declaration of war on the US -- but had still declared war on the US ... would we have been able to defeat him? It's fruitless to argue alternative history but... if in those circumstances we had just concentrated on keeping Britain out of his clutches -- which would not have been hard to do -- and focussed our efforts on defeating Japan ... then after defeating her, we would have been able to turn towards defeating him ... with our nuclear weapons.

No, I don't think California will secede, even if Trump wins again in 2020. They can ride it out, and for the elite, it's still a pretty nice existence. After all, the elite don't flee El Salvador or Honduras.

On the Right, the most articulate critic of what the Left has done to Calfornia is Victor Davis Hanson. Eight years ago, he wrote this:
California, Here We Stay
Reasons not to flee an imploding state: https://www.city-journal.org/html/california-here-we-stay-13507.html

Recently, he's been rather more pessimistic: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/victor-davis-hanson-california-premodern

https://www.realclearpolicy.com/vid...rnia_is_americas_first_third-world_state.html

So the California Leftists who want to leave America because it's too different from what they have made of California, should just have a little patience.
Within a few years, America will catch up to them.

But in the meantime, conservatives should encourage everyone to support Calfornia's right to leave, should they choose to do so.

 

Accusing those of opposing McCarthy as not being patriotic was one of the massive blunders of the day. Having you continue that idea here is really disgusting to me. There was NOTHING good about what McCarthy did - he was a major force against everything America stands for. Opposing his acts could not have been more patriotic.

As for Vietnam, there was certainly a change. Somehow, we believed we could conquer a people militarily and then change them - without even bothering to address the serous problems that existed. We were still led by WWII and believed in our might - even after the Korean war. Those who recognized the total fallacy of what we were doing were considered antiAmerican - simply because of that recognition. And, since it was an educated point of view it caused many to see post high school education as antiAmerican. THEY were very clearly RIGHT. And those who kept wanting to kill Asians were absolutely WRONG.

The tragedy is that we forgot that lesson (or failed to learn it) - subsequently causing revolution in Iran, conquering Afg, conquering Iraq, conquering Libya, conquering Palestine etc. Time after time we forget the our military is a temporary remedy for when things get out of control - but it's not a solution.

Learning that there are limits to military and economic force is not something that is anti patriotic. And, suggesting that those who understand that are somehow antiAmerican is major mistake - a mistake that we've already proven can have disasterous consequences for generations.

 

I think you have misunderstood me. I did not say that 'those who opposed McCarthy were unpatriotic'. In fact, some very good patriots opposed McCarthy. Not everyone who opposed McCarthy was a patriot, of course. What I said -- or what I meant to say -- was that the generation who came of age in the 1960s looked back on McCarthyism, and said, "If that's anti-Communism, we want no part of it" and became "anti-anti-Communists."

Thus it was that the generation of young Americans who were most opposed to the Vietnam War, and who joined SDS (Students for a Democratic Society, which had about 100 000 members by the end of the 60s, and hundreds of chapters on university campuses all over the US), by 1969, sent representatives to the SDS national convention, almost ALL of whom supported some version of Stalinism. They destroyed SDS because they split three ways on what exact form of Stalinism/Maoism to support. But there were no significant voices for liberal democracy, or even for democratic socialism.

They didn't say or think that 'Vietnam was a mistake, something that was beyond our ability "(but would have been a good thing if within our ability). Rather, all of these delegates had become, in their own eyes, revolutionary Marxist-Stalinist-Maoists. Now, these were just a thousand or so delegates -- certainly more extreme than the 100 000 they represented, who in turn were more extreme than the millions of college students who marched and demonstrated against the Vietnam war. What they shared however, was a deep disillusion about America -- NOT about America's ruling class which had been the viewpoint of earlier generations of Leftists, the 'Old Left' -- but about America as a nation. They carried that disillusion -- inchoate, not formed, not a conscious ideology -- with then into their careers, and when these careers involved teaching, they transmitted it to subsequent generations. And that's why a college can pull down the American flag, and why the editor of the Nation can just matter of factly state that the flag stands for chauvinism and war, full stop.

As for why the US got involved in Vietnam: remember that after Hitler, the Big Idea in the democracies was: No Appeasing of Dictators. And Stalin seemed to take the place of Hitler. Events after WWII seemed to show a worldwide, monolithic system, on the offensive. But ... we had defeated Italian fascism, German Nazism, and Japanese aggressive expansionist militarism, had occupied their countries ... and turned them into democrats. We had stopped the Communists of the North of Korea conquering the South of Korea. Why couldn't we do the same in Vietnam? Or so some of the thinking went.

This isn't the place to dissect American post-war foreign policy, to discuss America's deep genetic inability to understand other people's nationalism, especially that of the Third World, to discuss the role of the Military-Industrial Complex warned against by Eisenhower, to discuss how military spending plays the role of acceptable Keynsianism for conservatives ... we might find ourselves in a lot of agreement on that. If that surprises you, have a look at the journal called American Conservative, here: https://www.theamericanconservative.com [To sum up: there is a significant strain of conservative thought which would agree about the futility of American overseas military interventions over the last thirty years -- at least some of which would extend that back over the last sixty years -- and now, having been 'mugged by reality' with respect to the fool's errand of trying to bring stable liberal democracy and the understanding that 'diversity is strength' to warring tribes in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, a large part of the Republican base, whose sons and daughters bear most of the burden of fighting these wars, has come around to agreeing with this outlook: that partly explains Donald Trump's victory over Hillary, who was no 'peace' candidate.]

I think you are also mistaken about McCarthy. He fed on what had been liberal complacency about Communism, during the 1930s when there were 'no enemies to the Left', and also on what was all-American complacency about Communism, during WWII, when Uncle Joe was our Gallant Ally. There absolutely were, or had been, Communists in the government committing espionage in favor of the Soviet Union, liberals tended to pooh-pooh their presence, and this is what McCarthy played on.

For principled liberals, it was a dilemma -- for decades, the Right in America passed laws which effectively outlawed advocacy of socialism; there were hideous crimes committed against that most American of institutions, the Industrial Workers of the World. You couldn't find a greater American patriot that Eugene Debs, regular candidate of the Socialist Party for President, jailed for ten years by liberalish Democrat Woodrow Wilson, and only pardoned by Republican Warren Harding. The Russian Revolution of 1917 changed all that.

And then came the Communists: devoted to many good causes, the best builders of trade unions, fighters for Black rights, hardcore anti-fascists (until the Hitler-Stalin pact) ... and believers that the Soviet Union was the world's first workers state, to which all workers and all those devoted to the cause of the workers, owed their first allegiance. (And certainly no allegiance to the government of the world's dominant capitalist power.) You can see how a liberal would feel he should tolerate them, even when they were employed by the government. And certainly when the Soviet Union was our ally against Hitler ... and paying far the greater 'iron price' in the war against him. (And note that since 1936, the Communists wisely draped themselves in the American flag, with the slogan 'Communism is 20th Century Americanism').

The problem is laid out very well, in my opinion, in Whittaker Chambers' Witness. People who don't know about Chambers, and his nemesis (and long-time liberal hero, until his guilt seemed to have been established, although not conclusively) Alger Hiss, should take a few minutes to read about them. (Even better, read the well-written Witness, but not everyone has the time, even in lockdown.)
Whittaker Chambers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whittaker_Chambers
Alger Hiss: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alger_Hiss

You can't understand American history in the 20th Century unless you are familiar with these men.

Footnote: as an aside, I don't count abstract 'patriotism' as some sort of absolute virtue, unlike 'honesty' or 'kindness'. It's halfway up the ladder from total selfishness at the bottom, above love of one's family, to take another step up, above love of one's clan or tribe, to take yet another step up .... but below a commitment to all of humanity, at the top. So sometimes one nation's patriotism can clash with another's. Worse, the virtue of patriotism -- putting a large group of strangers, the nation, above oneself -- can easily co-exist with a raft of other horrible beliefs, like fascism. The soldiers of Hitler's Wehrmacht were good patriots. So it's best to think of patriotism as a neutral virtue, like courage which can be enlisted in the service of both good and bad causes.

But ... people can't jump over their own heads, and today there is still little material basis for people being loyal to 'all of humanity'. A few pointy-heads can claim this belief, and possibly be sincere. But for most people, patriotism is as far up the ladder of non-selfishness that history has allowed us to climb, so far.

Like the other more-than-self loyalties above -- to family, clan or tribe -- you get something back from patriotism. You and your family are made secure, and given the context in which to prosper, by your self-identified nation. And this inevitably finds its focus in that nation's state, even if you believe that this state has been temporarily hijacked by those who do not represent the best interests of the nation. It's a reciprocal thing. And at this point in time, 'all of humanity' has only the most feeble of institutions which can protect us. It's the nation-state or nothing, pretty much.

 

I always love it when someone claims the US is better than the Belgian Congo (perpetrated by white Europeans) or hell or whereever.

Such abject desperation for propping self esteem!

Beyond that, secession is a right wing thing. The left wing wants to joing together to find ways of moving forward. That's why it's called progressive.

Texas has a far stronger secessionist movement that has been active since the Civil War. the SC ruling is Texas v. White - NOT California v White. If any state leaves the union, it wil be Texas - NOT CA.

 

You think the US is not better than the Belgian Congo? Surely, it was (at the time) better than the first literal Belgian Congo --the one ruled by King Leopold, where conditions for the natives were so horrible that even the other imperialist powers were sickened, and forced the king to turn the place over to the Belgian government.

The latter didn't do such a bad job of pulling their colony up over the years, but ... people want their rulers to look like them, so the Belgians finally left, sadly, and for the last sixty years the Congo -- now called the 'Democratic Republic of the Congo' has 'ruled itself' ha ha ha.

The inevitable corrupt kleptocratic dictator wisely chose the American side in the Cold War, and enjoyed American support throughout his reign, at least while the Soviet Union existed. But then he managed to hang on for nearly another 20 years before being ousted by the military. So the white Europeans have been gone these sixty years. And what is the place like now?
A snip from Wiki:

[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo ] (The number for 'displaced', about five million, can also be applied to the number in that sad country who have been 'displaced' by the internal fighting from earthly life.)

Hmmm... that's a bit dry and abstract. Let's get graphic.

[SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_violence_in_the_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo ]

That's still a bit abstract. Let Al Jezeera give the victims a voice: https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/f...-survivors-share-stories-200412123610314.html

And you think that life in the US is NOT better than life in the Congo???? Boy, you must have some peculiar tastes.

As for the idea that "The left wing wants to join together to find ways of moving forward. That's why it's called progressive." ... I am left speechless.

Origen as elaborated by Aquinas, must come to the rescue, with the concept of "invincible ignorance" which explains why those who never had the opportunity to accept Christ as their savior, won't have to go live in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

 

It's spreading, in case you haven't seen this thread: The real reason behind the gun control change in Virginia

 

Stalinism is not a "Democratic Society". I entered college in the '60's and students were not Stalinists (though there are the 1% crazies on both extremes). They may have been accused of that by right wingers who were still wound up about killing "communist" Asians. The right wing motto at that time was "Our Flag, Love it or Leave it". And that was a strongly pro war motto.

I don't accept your analysis of what their deeper feelings were. That's rubbish. The fact of the matter is that US foreign policy was SERIOUSLY broken, and we were in the process of losig tens of thousands of college age kids in an effort that was preposterous from ANY angle one could possibly look at it.

We DID stand for war at that time, by the way. We were living the red scare through proxy wars.

So, there was a lot of though being put into what America should be like. It's perfectly natural that many studied other forms of government, other economic philosophies, other religious philosophies, and even tried putting them into practice in smaller communities of individuals living near each other. Marti Luther King Jr. opposed our war in Vietnam in amazing speeches noting how we were taking poor Americans to Vietname to kill poor Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, etc.

And, that is as it should be TODAY!!

Today, we need to rethink our foreign policy. What we have been doing is failing. Our state department is subserviant in every way to our DoD. Our Foreign Service was smaller than our combined military bands as noted by the en of the Bush administration, and I highly doubt it is any better today.

European natons had significant traditions of democracy. Japan happened to have their god alive and well on Earth and he ordered Japan do do what we said. Suggesting the Korean war was a success requires some serious brainwashing. NK is one of our larger problems today. And, that war has never even been officially ended. These are NOT legitimate examples of a US capability of conquering and rebuilding nations. And, it skips cases such as Iran, where our revolution led to today's disasterous situation there.

I'm well aware of what the thinking of our government was. But, it's pretty easy now to look back and realize that it never made any sense. For example, Ho Chi Minh was highly anit-Chinese and was totally dedicated to an independent Vietnam. When he actually had a government in Vietnam his government had 2/3 of the government coming from parties other than his own party. He was clearly focused on independence. He got help from China only after we cranked up the war, making it necessary for him to get help.

I agree, though I don't believe Trump's victory had much to do with foreign policy.

That was before the war. After the war he worked his way up to congress (using seriously slimey maneuvers aggainst opposition) and began his "enemies within" campaign in about 1950.

The fact that there were some covert agents around is not even SLIGHTLY an excuse for what McCarthy did. In fact, with his approach it clearly made it hard for any legitimate investigation to take place. He ran a campaign of fear and destruction that had NOTHING to do with real evidence or truth. And, he destroyed the lives of large numbers of those clearly innocent, with no interest in taking his boot off their necks.

McCarthy is a blot on the Republican party.

Your list is not NEARLY good enough, of course.

And, the original points had more to do with what we've learned about what can be achieved by war.

You added an addendum that I won't comment on other than to say that we probably have a VERY different idea of what "patriot" means. Those demostrating against the war in Vietnam were more patriotic than those who attacked men who wore their hair long. That war was clearly wrong - a travesty against what America stands for and a humanitairan crime and something the US needed to stop doing.

Plus, Martin Luther King Jr. was a MAJOR patriot.

 

It has to do with the idea that CA either the leaving portion or the remaining portion is going engage in ethnic cleansing.

Such ignorance isn't really a big thing in America. Racial segregation is one of the dumber tendencies in other cultures, but thank goodness that doesn't really infect intelligent American society.

No. The California Middle Class isn't segregated by race, though there is some tension by class. There is incredible diversity among the wealthy, middle class and so forth.

He was in an alliance with Russia prior to the invasion. You really think that US/Britain would have taken on Continental Europe unified under German control and allied with the Soviet Union?

He's a state treasure.

I doubt it. CA is more held up as an example of how destructive unchecked leftism and illegal immigration is.

We do, as well as the right of the contiguous Red Counties to form their own state and remain in the Union.

 

Not the DRC. What was mentioned Belgian Congo. The king of Belgium ruled the Congo as his own business. His crimes were spectacular (cutting off the arms of those not productive enough, etc.). Joseph Conrad's "heart of darkness" is based on that - a measure of grimness, not an exposition of fact.

And, I said that's setting a seriously LOW bar for what is good - engineered to make the US look good. But, we should be comparing the US NOT to low bars, but to HIGH bars, if we are striving to be best (as Melania might put it).

 

dupe

 

I think you're misreading a lot of what I wrote, and being a bit uncharitable in your interpretations. (For instance, of course my list of people you need to know about for understanding 20th Century American history is not long enough!!!! Necessary, not sufficient.) Like many liberals, you want to assimilate 'patriotism' to 'liberalism'. I don't believe the opposite -- JFK was a great patriot, so were Truman and FDR. But as I said, patriotism is a neutral virtue.

As for Korea: you seem to be critical of the fact that we didn't conquer North Korea. The later is a problem because we didn't wage war successfully against it, not because we did. And South Korea, after several decades of military dictatorship, is now a flourishing democracy. And good contrast between socialism and capitalism.

I'm also not an apologist for McCarthy. A blot on the Republican Party? Okay. What's your opinion of the Communist Control Act of 1954, which actually outlawed the Communist Party and its front groups (some of them), effectively doing away with the rights of citizenship for CP members? And who was a co-sponsor: Hubert Humphrey, probably the most liberal member of the Senate, the closest thing we had to a Social Democrat until Bernie came along. And he was typical of all liberals: to quote the Wiki article on this Act, "Most liberal Democrats did not even offer a token opposition to the Act; on the contrary, they ardently supported it." [SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Control_Act_of_1954 ] So a blot on both parties.

As for the 'Vietnam generation'. I think you're talking about the mass of college kids who opposed the war, who didn't have much ideology at all. Yes, a lot of them became hippies, or other sorts of airheads, experimented with communes, took up ridiculous made-to-order-for-gullible-westerners bogus religions .... all of this represented a mild sort of alienation from the country they had grown up in but was not very harmful in the long run, since eventually they had to make a living.

I'm talking, as I said, about their most active and conscious elements, the 100 000 or so who joined the Students for a Democratic Society. Their delegates at the national SDS convention (the last one) in 1969 split three ways, on which kind of totalitarian Stalinism to support. What this represented was a profound alienation from the real America, the actually existing America ... which has transmitted itself, and grown in intensity, down to this day, as we see daily proof of.

So Nike thinks it would be a good idea to put the Betsy Ross flag on some new sneakers? Nope, the social justice warriors, who hate America, can veto it. And get away with it. Fifty years ago that would have been unthinkable. But the nation's sinews have been eaten away by the people who changed their mind about America fifty years ago, and then spread their poison to succeeding generations of the cultural elite.

America is dead. The Left have killed it. What's left is a shell, inhabited by, basically, two different tribes. One loves their country, is proud of its achievements, acknowledges (for the most part) past sins -- sins shared with the whole human race -- but sees tremendous improvement, honors the flag. The other ... not. The think the first group are deplorable rednecks, sub-human. For them, America is an arena, a place to be conquered so they can advance their Social Justice agenda in aid of their favored victim-groups.

What will become of this shell is not yet determined. There will be tremendous stresses on America, especially if it does not shake off the chains of empire and stop trying to get savages to stop being savages. If China overcomes the big setback that the Chinese Communist Virus has been for it ... and continues to grow ... we may face a terrible military shock in the future. A strong Democratic victory in two branches of government will re-open the borders, even wider this time.

How much better off the people of this country would be, if we could just have a peaceful separation, an amicable divorce.

 

Woah - long thread!

Bottom line: Only civil war will bring about partition

California: Can't secede (Too many Californias; at least 8 that I see)

 

I couldn't agree more. I think that the US has gone way past the point where we can realistically do that, but, as an exercise, it would be an interesting thing to do to have everyone propose some institution or practice from some other country, that the US should adopt, to improve itself. I would not at all rule out countries which in many other respects are worse than the US. For instance, when I was in Mexico, I heard of a service -- government-run -- called 'Road Angels'. It would be interesting to learn more about them, and to compare what they do, with the privatized equivalent in the US.

But my nomination if we could only nominate one thing, would be the UK's "Michaela" School, which draws its pupils from among mainly "communities of color", and does a fantastic job of getting them a good education -- or, at least, of having them do spectacularly well in the UK's examination system. Yet no one seems to want to know about this proven example of making the traditional way of breaking down class barriers and ending the cycle of poverty actually work. America's inner city public schools are dire, nothing to be proud of. Why does no one want to know about an example that works? Because it's in another country? Because the person who started and runs this school is not white? Because no one really cares what happens to poor Black kids? Or because everyone really believes that they are in fact beyond hope?

 

If California should decide to secede, what makes you think the farming areas will go with California? They could simple break off from California and stay as part of the United States.

 

My point was that those opposing the Vietnam war were treated as traitors when I would argue that they were just as patriotic. Don't tell me I'm "like many liberals". Tell me something about the issue.

False again. I pointed to the Korean war as an early experience of our military might not solving the problem . Subsequent to that we had similar examples - Vietnam, Iran, Afghanistan Iraq, Libya etc. We were very slow learners. And, I would argue we're no better today.

As for the 'Vietnam generation'. I think you're talking about the mass of college kids who opposed the war, who didn't have much ideology at all. Yes, a lot of them became hippies, or other sorts of airheads, experimented with communes, took up ridiculous made-to-order-for-gullible-westerners bogus religions .... all of this represented a mild sort of alienation from the country they had grown up in but was not very harmful in the long run, since eventually they had to make a living.

I'm talking, as I said, about their most active and conscious elements, the 100 000 or so who joined the Students for a Democratic Society. Their delegates at the national SDS convention (the last one) in 1969 split three ways, on which kind of totalitarian Stalinism to support. What this represented was a profound alienation from the real America, the actually existing America ... which has transmitted itself, and grown in intensity, down to this day, as we see daily proof of.

So Nike thinks it would be a good idea to put the Betsy Ross flag on some new sneakers? Nope, the social justice warriors, who hate America, can veto it. And get away with it. Fifty years ago that would have been unthinkable. But the nation's sinews have been eaten away by the people who changed their mind about America fifty years ago, and then spread their poison to succeeding generations of the cultural elite.

America is dead. The Left have killed it. What's left is a shell, inhabited by, basically, two different tribes. One loves their country, is proud of its achievements, acknowledges (for the most part) past sins -- sins shared with the whole human race -- but sees tremendous improvement, honors the flag. The other ... not. The think the first group are deplorable rednecks, sub-human. For them, America is an arena, a place to be conquered so they can advance their Social Justice agenda in aid of their favored victim-groups.

What will become of this shell is not yet determined. There will be tremendous stresses on America, especially if it does not shake off the chains of empire and stop trying to get savages to stop being savages. If China overcomes the big setback that the Chinese Communist Virus has been for it ... and continues to grow ... we may face a terrible military shock in the future. A strong Democratic victory in two branches of government will re-open the borders, even wider this time.

How much better off the people of this country would be, if we could just have a peaceful separation, an amicable divorce.[/QUOTE]
OK, this doesn't deserve comment.

 

See, even Mitch McConnell sees the former US as two separate nations. He has no intention of providing assistance to Blue States - only red states. And as Cuomo points out, we in the Blue States have been carrying the red states for decades.

Dump the red states! We would be far better off without them!!! Without the great States that form the new nations of the West Coast and the North East, the rest of the country is a pathetic joke. WE ARE the US. We ARE what made America great.

 

Excellent!!!! The United States is divided into two groups: on the one hand, well-educated, young, beautiful secular, culturally-aware (diversity-is-strength!) college graduates, highly skilled in important tasks like diversity counselling and marketing, ... and stupid, poorly-educated, ugly, religious, family-bound Orks on the other -- with grease-stained hands, full of ridiculous patriotism, proud of their country and in denial of its racist-sexist-Islamophobic-transphobic-homophobic reality and genocidal imperialist past. And all those horrid guns!!!! And brutal policemen!!!

Kick 'em out! And then take pleasure in watching them starve, not only physically, but culturally, as they try to get by without the wonderful cultural contributions of diverse groups, with their horrible closed borders -- a sharp contrast to the Open Borders their social superiors will institute in Blue America, which will become a collection of little Swedens (Malmo's, to be precise).

So many agree on this, from both sides! Why can't we take it forward? Let's put aside our differences on other issues, and create a United Front!

 

The South has never really accepted defeat in the civil war. They still honor the men who waged war on the US. Many still want to fly the Confederate flag. Texas was calling for secession for years; including the governor. Traditionally red states have ridiculed and resented California and West Coast for as long as I can remember. Even as a young child I was aware of it and confused by it. Why do people in Arkansas hate us? And we have seen the vitriol against any and all liberals; and now even anyone who doesn't support trump. They have cheered for calls for the mass murder of tens of thousands of innocent people. They cheered when trump called for extreme torture. They cheer for a man who coddles cold-blooded killers like Duterte and Kim Jong Un.

To say this is a divided nation is an extreme understatement. They haven't wanted anything to do with US for as long as I can remember. And with the election of trump, the majority of US now reject THEM as countrymen. They aren't Americans. They aren't patriots. They are enemies of the Constitution. And they fanatically cheer for a criminal thug we will NEVER call our president. So rather than waiting for a civil war, legalize secession and admit that the grand experiment failed.

 

Oh yeah, MAGA.

Let there be no doubt, America ended the day trump was elected. Trump's election was a declaration of war on anyone who doesn't support him; our core institutions and most profound beliefs and values, and everything good America has ever tried to be.

YOU declared war on US. Remember that. I can promise that WE will never forget what you have done.

 

What will be done with such knowledge? Will the names and addresses of those who voted for Donald Trump be released to the public so they can be outed, and met with retribution on the basis of which political candidate they supported? Will others be encouraged to deliver violence against those that supported Donald Trump?

 

Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya!

 

@Doug1943

You have this vision of vast swathes of the country joining the California secessionists. The reality is you guys couldn't muster a majority vote for secession in any more than a handful of counties.

 

I already gave some conditions under which I would support California secessionists leaving. Would you agree to those?

 

Very good! You have summed us up very well: close to Absolute Evil, incomprehensible ... so get rid of us!

We should set aside our differences on many issues, and see how we can take this forward.

At the moment, the idea of a peaceful separation will be rejected by almost everyone, Left and Right
It will be seen as absolutely crazy.
But if reasonable people make the argument calmly -- starting from the principle of the right of self-determination -- then the 'meme' will be planted in the consciousness of those people who care about and think about political issues. (That's a small minority in the US, but they will lead the others.)

In the mid-80s, the old Soviet Union, although a bit stagnant, seemed eternal. Almost all of our scholars who specialized in studying it said so. Only that moon-calf, Ronald Reagan, seemed to believe that it could actually be defeated, but what did he know.

And ... it was pretty stable. I lived there for a few months in 1985, and travelled around a bit, giving a lecture on 'Microcomputers and Education' in Kharkov, Novisibersk, and Tallinn ... and I noticed something. No one was starving. Everyone had a job. But ... the intelligentsia I dealt with -- other academics, mainly -- seemed deeply discontent, in a quiet way.

They had no political power, but ... they were the 'cultural apparatus' of society. Their (justified) pessimism about the ability of socialism to innovate reflected, I believe, a deep, growing consensus. (Anyone interested in this subject should read Francis Spufford's novel, Red Plenty. A brilliant, fictional account -- very true to life, according to Russians I've read -- of what economists call 'the Economic Calculation Question' or, sometimes, 'the Socialist Calculation Question' -- the definitive proof of why genuine socialism MUST be very inefficient.)

I had taken my microcomputer with me, to illustrate my talk, and they were fascinated by it. And to a man, they seemed utterly pessimistic that the Soviet Union could ever make anything similar. So when Gorbachev came along the following year, and began to try to open things up, I commented to my then-wife that we might see the end of the Soviet Union .. in twenty years. Ha! Once things got unravelling, they unravelled rapidly.

Somewhere someone gave an apparent quote from Lenin, to the effect that decades can pass, when nothing happens, and then weeks can pass, when decades happen. This is what happened in the USSR -- the unspeakable became speakable.

Now ... I believe something similar is possible -- not inevitable -- in the US. When more and more people on the Left realize how utterly horrible we on the right are -- little better than sub-human, with practically Nazi ideology -- but that there are fifty million of us -- they may come to accept that giving us a bit of the US -- Idaho, western Oregon and Washington, some surrounding states and pieces of states -- and then kicking us out, so that they can build their progressive paradise -- that this would be a good thing.

The right of self-determination. A valid principle, and a solution to the problem of how to achieve a Progressive/Socialist America.

 

I went back and looked over your posts, and could not find what you are talking about. Could you post those conditions again?