Angry With Washington, 1 In 4 Americans Open To Secession

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

“Some 23.9 percent of Americans polled from Aug. 23 through Sept. 16 said they strongly supported or tended to support the idea of their state breaking away, while 53.3 percent of the 8,952 respondents strongly opposed or tended to oppose the notion.”


Some 23.9 percent of Americans polled from Aug. 23 through Sept. 16 are ignorant of the Constitution and its case law.

And fortunately we have the Constitution and its case law to safeguard all Americans from that ignorance.

Um the COTUS is silent on the matter of secession, and their is no case law.

Now obviously the Civil War is important here, but their is no constitutional reason why states can't secede and there is certainly no case law.

What about Texas v. White?

Personally , I don't care what you call them. Call them the Washington Manpig Crackers

I don't care. I'm not a pussy who gets offended by words.

 

[Lakhota]

“Some 23.9 percent of Americans polled from Aug. 23 through Sept. 16 said they strongly supported or tended to support the idea of their state breaking away, while 53.3 percent of the 8,952 respondents strongly opposed or tended to oppose the notion.”


Some 23.9 percent of Americans polled from Aug. 23 through Sept. 16 are ignorant of the Constitution and its case law.

And fortunately we have the Constitution and its case law to safeguard all Americans from that ignorance.

Um the COTUS is silent on the matter of secession, and their is no case law.

Now obviously the Civil War is important here, but their is no constitutional reason why states can't secede and there is certainly no case law.

What about Texas v. White?

Personally , I don't care what you call them. Call them the Washington Manpig Crackers

I don't care. I'm not a pussy who gets offended by words.

Get off that crack pipe and get some fresh air.

 

[Youch]

BOSTON, Sept 19 (Reuters) - The failed Scottish vote to pull out from the United Kingdom stirred secessionist hopes for some in the United States, where almost a quarter of people are open to their states leaving the union, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll found.

Some 23.9 percent of Americans polled from Aug. 23 through Sept. 16 said they strongly supported or tended to support the idea of their state breaking away, while 53.3 percent of the 8,952 respondents strongly opposed or tended to oppose the notion.

The urge to sever ties with Washington cuts across party lines and regions, though Republicans and residents of rural Western states are generally warmer to the idea than Democrats and Northeasterners, according to the poll.

Anger with President Barack Obama's handling of issues ranging from healthcare reform to the rise of Islamic State militants drives some of the feeling, with Republican respondents citing dissatisfaction with his administration as coloring their thinking.

But others said long-running Washington gridlock had prompted them to wonder if their states would be better off striking out on their own, a move no U.S. state has tried in the 150 years since the bloody Civil War that led to the end of slavery in the South.

"I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference anymore which political party is running things. Nothing gets done," said Roy Gustafson, 61, of Camden, South Carolina, who lives on disability payments. "The state would be better off handling things on its own."

Scottish unionists won by a wider-than-expected 10-percentage-point margin.

Falling public approval of the Obama administration, attention to the Scottish vote and the success of activists who accuse the U.S. government of overstepping its authority - such as the self-proclaimed militia members who flocked to Nevada's Bundy ranch earlier this year during a standoff over grazing rights - is driving up interest in secession, experts said.

"It seems to have heated up, especially since the election of President Obama," said Mordecai Lee, a professor of governmental affairs at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, who has studied secessionist movements.

'OBAMACARE' A FACTOR

More: Angry With Washington, 1 In 4 Americans Open To Secession

Does it make sense for any of the United States to secede? Would you like for your state to secede?

I think secession is a bad idea. I think the fact that most people default to secession as a remedy is because they are unfamiliar with Article 5 of the Constitution. The States, who by the way gave birth to the Federal Government, and who by the way were neutered by the 17th Amendment, actually have the power to change the federal government they gave birth to. All we need is 2/3s of the State Legislatures to convene and agree. Never been done, but it would be Constitutional.

Secession, aka balkanization in a way, would be a victory for the libs. Nay, the real remedy lies in Article 5. We could return to being a Republic, a return to Federalism. That is my vote. But mob rules these days, not law.

 

[Rikurzhen]

BOSTON, Sept 19 (Reuters) - The failed Scottish vote to pull out from the United Kingdom stirred secessionist hopes for some in the United States, where almost a quarter of people are open to their states leaving the union, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll found.

Some 23.9 percent of Americans polled from Aug. 23 through Sept. 16 said they strongly supported or tended to support the idea of their state breaking away, while 53.3 percent of the 8,952 respondents strongly opposed or tended to oppose the notion.

The urge to sever ties with Washington cuts across party lines and regions, though Republicans and residents of rural Western states are generally warmer to the idea than Democrats and Northeasterners, according to the poll.

Anger with President Barack Obama's handling of issues ranging from healthcare reform to the rise of Islamic State militants drives some of the feeling, with Republican respondents citing dissatisfaction with his administration as coloring their thinking.

But others said long-running Washington gridlock had prompted them to wonder if their states would be better off striking out on their own, a move no U.S. state has tried in the 150 years since the bloody Civil War that led to the end of slavery in the South.

"I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference anymore which political party is running things. Nothing gets done," said Roy Gustafson, 61, of Camden, South Carolina, who lives on disability payments. "The state would be better off handling things on its own."

Scottish unionists won by a wider-than-expected 10-percentage-point margin.

Falling public approval of the Obama administration, attention to the Scottish vote and the success of activists who accuse the U.S. government of overstepping its authority - such as the self-proclaimed militia members who flocked to Nevada's Bundy ranch earlier this year during a standoff over grazing rights - is driving up interest in secession, experts said.

"It seems to have heated up, especially since the election of President Obama," said Mordecai Lee, a professor of governmental affairs at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, who has studied secessionist movements.

'OBAMACARE' A FACTOR

More: Angry With Washington, 1 In 4 Americans Open To Secession

Does it make sense for any of the United States to secede? Would you like for your state to secede?

I think secession is a bad idea. I think the fact that most people default to secession as a remedy is because they are unfamiliar with Article 5 of the Constitution. The States, who by the way gave birth to the Federal Government, and who by the way were neutered by the 17th Amendment, actually have the power to change the federal government they gave birth to. All we need is 2/3s of the State Legislatures to convene and agree. Never been done, but it would be Constitutional.

Secession, aka balkanization in a way, would be a victory for the libs. Nay, the real remedy lies in Article 5. We could return to being a Republic, a return to Federalism. That is my vote. But mob rules these days, not law.

I don't see how that could work. The read I get is that people are losing identity as Americans. How is it possible that Americans are fighting for ISIS? That doesn't compute. There's a sickness in the soul of America and it is expressed in many different ways, so when people say that they're open to secession they're saying, I take it, that they don't see a way forward, a way that America can be salvaged. A lot of problems, no common ground for compromise and best to move on to a new experiment.

How do you counter that with your vision?

 

[Youch]

BOSTON, Sept 19 (Reuters) - The failed Scottish vote to pull out from the United Kingdom stirred secessionist hopes for some in the United States, where almost a quarter of people are open to their states leaving the union, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll found.

Some 23.9 percent of Americans polled from Aug. 23 through Sept. 16 said they strongly supported or tended to support the idea of their state breaking away, while 53.3 percent of the 8,952 respondents strongly opposed or tended to oppose the notion.

The urge to sever ties with Washington cuts across party lines and regions, though Republicans and residents of rural Western states are generally warmer to the idea than Democrats and Northeasterners, according to the poll.

Anger with President Barack Obama's handling of issues ranging from healthcare reform to the rise of Islamic State militants drives some of the feeling, with Republican respondents citing dissatisfaction with his administration as coloring their thinking.

But others said long-running Washington gridlock had prompted them to wonder if their states would be better off striking out on their own, a move no U.S. state has tried in the 150 years since the bloody Civil War that led to the end of slavery in the South.

"I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference anymore which political party is running things. Nothing gets done," said Roy Gustafson, 61, of Camden, South Carolina, who lives on disability payments. "The state would be better off handling things on its own."

Scottish unionists won by a wider-than-expected 10-percentage-point margin.

Falling public approval of the Obama administration, attention to the Scottish vote and the success of activists who accuse the U.S. government of overstepping its authority - such as the self-proclaimed militia members who flocked to Nevada's Bundy ranch earlier this year during a standoff over grazing rights - is driving up interest in secession, experts said.

"It seems to have heated up, especially since the election of President Obama," said Mordecai Lee, a professor of governmental affairs at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, who has studied secessionist movements.

'OBAMACARE' A FACTOR

More: Angry With Washington, 1 In 4 Americans Open To Secession

Does it make sense for any of the United States to secede? Would you like for your state to secede?

I think secession is a bad idea. I think the fact that most people default to secession as a remedy is because they are unfamiliar with Article 5 of the Constitution. The States, who by the way gave birth to the Federal Government, and who by the way were neutered by the 17th Amendment, actually have the power to change the federal government they gave birth to. All we need is 2/3s of the State Legislatures to convene and agree. Never been done, but it would be Constitutional.

Secession, aka balkanization in a way, would be a victory for the libs. Nay, the real remedy lies in Article 5. We could return to being a Republic, a return to Federalism. That is my vote. But mob rules these days, not law.

I don't see how that could work. The read I get is that people are losing identity as Americans. How is it possible that Americans are fighting for ISIS? That doesn't compute. There's a sickness in the soul of America and it is expressed in many different ways, so when people say that they're open to secession they're saying, I take it, that they don't see a way forward, a way that America can be salvaged. A lot of problems, no common ground for compromise and best to move on to a new experiment.

How do you counter that with your vision?

With all due respect, I just spoke about that in my previous post. We are not far from 2/3's of the states agreeing on a remedy. Just takes some leadership. Please re-read my previous post. I'd be happy to discuss.

I agree with you regarding people losing their American identity. You can thank liberal multi-culturalism for that, in spades!!!

 

[Rikurzhen]

BOSTON, Sept 19 (Reuters) - The failed Scottish vote to pull out from the United Kingdom stirred secessionist hopes for some in the United States, where almost a quarter of people are open to their states leaving the union, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll found.

Some 23.9 percent of Americans polled from Aug. 23 through Sept. 16 said they strongly supported or tended to support the idea of their state breaking away, while 53.3 percent of the 8,952 respondents strongly opposed or tended to oppose the notion.

The urge to sever ties with Washington cuts across party lines and regions, though Republicans and residents of rural Western states are generally warmer to the idea than Democrats and Northeasterners, according to the poll.

Anger with President Barack Obama's handling of issues ranging from healthcare reform to the rise of Islamic State militants drives some of the feeling, with Republican respondents citing dissatisfaction with his administration as coloring their thinking.

But others said long-running Washington gridlock had prompted them to wonder if their states would be better off striking out on their own, a move no U.S. state has tried in the 150 years since the bloody Civil War that led to the end of slavery in the South.

"I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference anymore which political party is running things. Nothing gets done," said Roy Gustafson, 61, of Camden, South Carolina, who lives on disability payments. "The state would be better off handling things on its own."

Scottish unionists won by a wider-than-expected 10-percentage-point margin.

Falling public approval of the Obama administration, attention to the Scottish vote and the success of activists who accuse the U.S. government of overstepping its authority - such as the self-proclaimed militia members who flocked to Nevada's Bundy ranch earlier this year during a standoff over grazing rights - is driving up interest in secession, experts said.

"It seems to have heated up, especially since the election of President Obama," said Mordecai Lee, a professor of governmental affairs at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, who has studied secessionist movements.

'OBAMACARE' A FACTOR

More: Angry With Washington, 1 In 4 Americans Open To Secession

Does it make sense for any of the United States to secede? Would you like for your state to secede?

I think secession is a bad idea. I think the fact that most people default to secession as a remedy is because they are unfamiliar with Article 5 of the Constitution. The States, who by the way gave birth to the Federal Government, and who by the way were neutered by the 17th Amendment, actually have the power to change the federal government they gave birth to. All we need is 2/3s of the State Legislatures to convene and agree. Never been done, but it would be Constitutional.

Secession, aka balkanization in a way, would be a victory for the libs. Nay, the real remedy lies in Article 5. We could return to being a Republic, a return to Federalism. That is my vote. But mob rules these days, not law.

I don't see how that could work. The read I get is that people are losing identity as Americans. How is it possible that Americans are fighting for ISIS? That doesn't compute. There's a sickness in the soul of America and it is expressed in many different ways, so when people say that they're open to secession they're saying, I take it, that they don't see a way forward, a way that America can be salvaged. A lot of problems, no common ground for compromise and best to move on to a new experiment.

How do you counter that with your vision?

With all due respect, I just spoke about that in my previous post. We are not far from 2/3's of the states agreeing on a remedy. Just takes some leadership. Please re-read my previous post. I'd be happy to discuss.

I agree with you regarding people losing their American identity. You can thank liberal multi-culturalism for that, in spades!!!

I did read your post but I didn't see the vision of the future that apparently inspired your post. What I saw you explaining was a mechanism but not a solution. The mechanism rests on governance but the problem, for many at least, is with the people.

This is why I thought further explanation from you would be helpful - how does strengthening state rights help the people or society based issues to get resolved?

Let's say that I reject multiculturalism, I reject infringement on freedom of association, I reject liberal redistributionism, how do you solve the problems in America for a group who share the same concerns?

 

[Lakhota]

Americans are becoming more and more detached from each other - including families. Without the federal government (w/military) to hold us together - we'll end up in a major civil war.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

A secessionist movement over the first black president would be tragic irony to President Lincoln and the Civil War.

I find it hilarious you think the reason is race. It is race only in your simple little mind. The first black president doesn't actually mean he was a good one as you think must be the case. You place race over results and I can't blame you for that line of thinking when it comes to obie. You have nothing else to lean on. The results are piss poor and therefore you have nothing in the tank other than racism. Piss poor way of thinking.

My next point is this...

Why is it you left wingers get so upset with red states succeeding? According to you they are a drain on your utopian society. You've posted many times that red states are takers and you would be better off without them. Why aren't the blue states talking about succeeding in their own best interest of shedding the so called takers of their incredible wealth and utopian society? If you have shit so under control and the red states can't live without you why would you care if they left the union and saved you a bunch of money in the process?

I think it's more of a concern on your part you can't live without us and we can easily live without you. Once you have to take care of your own welfare systems without Fed assistance you will be fucked. And you know it.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Americans are becoming more and more detached from each other - including families. Without the federal government (w/military) to hold us together - we'll end up in a major civil war.

That's the liberal plan woman! Socialists have known this forever. Once they destroy all rival support systems in society, things like family, churches, Rotary Clubs, neighborhood associations, etc. then all people have left is the Federal Government.

You guys and your agenda is the problem.

 

[Youch]

BOSTON, Sept 19 (Reuters) - The failed Scottish vote to pull out from the United Kingdom stirred secessionist hopes for some in the United States, where almost a quarter of people are open to their states leaving the union, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll found.

Some 23.9 percent of Americans polled from Aug. 23 through Sept. 16 said they strongly supported or tended to support the idea of their state breaking away, while 53.3 percent of the 8,952 respondents strongly opposed or tended to oppose the notion.

The urge to sever ties with Washington cuts across party lines and regions, though Republicans and residents of rural Western states are generally warmer to the idea than Democrats and Northeasterners, according to the poll.

Anger with President Barack Obama's handling of issues ranging from healthcare reform to the rise of Islamic State militants drives some of the feeling, with Republican respondents citing dissatisfaction with his administration as coloring their thinking.

But others said long-running Washington gridlock had prompted them to wonder if their states would be better off striking out on their own, a move no U.S. state has tried in the 150 years since the bloody Civil War that led to the end of slavery in the South.

"I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference anymore which political party is running things. Nothing gets done," said Roy Gustafson, 61, of Camden, South Carolina, who lives on disability payments. "The state would be better off handling things on its own."

Scottish unionists won by a wider-than-expected 10-percentage-point margin.

Falling public approval of the Obama administration, attention to the Scottish vote and the success of activists who accuse the U.S. government of overstepping its authority - such as the self-proclaimed militia members who flocked to Nevada's Bundy ranch earlier this year during a standoff over grazing rights - is driving up interest in secession, experts said.

"It seems to have heated up, especially since the election of President Obama," said Mordecai Lee, a professor of governmental affairs at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, who has studied secessionist movements.

'OBAMACARE' A FACTOR

More: Angry With Washington, 1 In 4 Americans Open To Secession

Does it make sense for any of the United States to secede? Would you like for your state to secede?

I think secession is a bad idea. I think the fact that most people default to secession as a remedy is because they are unfamiliar with Article 5 of the Constitution. The States, who by the way gave birth to the Federal Government, and who by the way were neutered by the 17th Amendment, actually have the power to change the federal government they gave birth to. All we need is 2/3s of the State Legislatures to convene and agree. Never been done, but it would be Constitutional.

Secession, aka balkanization in a way, would be a victory for the libs. Nay, the real remedy lies in Article 5. We could return to being a Republic, a return to Federalism. That is my vote. But mob rules these days, not law.

I don't see how that could work. The read I get is that people are losing identity as Americans. How is it possible that Americans are fighting for ISIS? That doesn't compute. There's a sickness in the soul of America and it is expressed in many different ways, so when people say that they're open to secession they're saying, I take it, that they don't see a way forward, a way that America can be salvaged. A lot of problems, no common ground for compromise and best to move on to a new experiment.

How do you counter that with your vision?

With all due respect, I just spoke about that in my previous post. We are not far from 2/3's of the states agreeing on a remedy. Just takes some leadership. Please re-read my previous post. I'd be happy to discuss.

I agree with you regarding people losing their American identity. You can thank liberal multi-culturalism for that, in spades!!!

I did read your post but I didn't see the vision of the future that apparently inspired your post. What I saw you explaining was a mechanism but not a solution. The mechanism rests on governance but the problem, for many at least, is with the people.

This is why I thought further explanation from you would be helpful - how does strengthening state rights help the people or society based issues to get resolved?

Let's say that I reject multiculturalism, I reject infringement on freedom of association, I reject liberal redistributionism, how do you solve the problems in America for a group who share the same concerns?

You are my new best friend! LOL Thanks for communicating so well.

Time being a constraint (and I am multi-tasking while doing this), I'll attempt to give you something to chew on. And not pabulum.

My vision, and likely shared by most Tea Party folks (I'm not part of them, but I agree with their principles), is that we need to reign in our self-serving federal government that is far removed from our individual best interests. Secession is to break up America. Me no-likey that option. I prefer the remedy that our Framers designed, a remedy they foresaw as necessary due to human nature. But you asked me naught for the mechanics (although that needs to be announced loud and clear and at every opportunity), but you want vision. Well gosh....okay.... not sure if your request is bait, but I'll bite.....my vision is a Constitutional federal government whereby the States have the most power. If you read the Constitution, it enumerates specific powers, GIVES, GRANTS, specific powers to the federal government, and leaves EVERYTHING else to each individual state. That is my vision. Currently, the Federal Government, operating on its own and for its own best interests, negates the interests and power of individual states, and is thus FAR REMOVED from our own individual interests. Federal mandates are, 99% of the time, not agreed upon by the individual. Income tax is a perfect example.....which has been perverted and extrapolated to the point of oppression. Do the states have voice? No, because the self-serving 17th Amendment neutered the states. This is akin to the giving birth to a child, only to have that child recuse itself from any obligation to the parent because he sees loftier opportunities elsewhere. Well, the states are the parent.....actually, the people are, but I'm refraining from the mechanics, per your request.

I think what it all boils down to for most folks is the welfare state. Welfare, being a vote buying schemes as obviously politicians care naught for the individual outside the voting booth (and even then, libs are famous for manipulating the voting process 'cause their ideology is not always appealing). So, the Tea Party, and the Republicans not afraid of polls and media, advance the notion that we should DRAMATICALLY reduce the welfare state (gee, isn't working for a wage better for the economy and our neighbors than sitting at home playing video games?), and even a subset of them, of which I am an adherent, desire that EVERYONE pay taxes, albeit at a lessor rate for most current tax-payers. Why does this not fly? Because the libs use taxation as a political tool, and manipulate the tax code such that more and more non-tax-paying folks vote democrat to keep Santa Claus in power. On topic, I disagree.....I don't want Santa Claus, or the corruption it invites. I want EQUALITY. The libs talk about equality all the time, but they don't mean it. True equality is that everyone pays an equal share of their contribution, i.e., labor. Fair tax, flat tax, whatever, but the current confiscatory policies that take from the haves and gives to the have-nots is not "equal" nor what the Framers envisioned (read the Federalist Papers).

Okay, sorry, I may not have answered your question. Forgive me. I will reply at a later date, perhaps tomorrow..

 

[Rikurzhen]

I think what it all boils down to for most folks is the welfare state. Welfare, being a vote buying schemes as obviously politicians care naught for the individual outside the voting booth (and even then, libs are famous for manipulating the voting process 'cause their ideology is not always appealing).

As I already noted, I'm sensing that people are tuning into a shriveling of the soul of the nation buy they can't articulate exactly what ails us or they can but feel it impolite to speak of it. You point to welfare and so do many other people. However there are people in Iceland and Finland who enthusiastically support welfare spending and they like the society that they've created. Social scientists now understand why we don't like it and other countries do - when we pay for welfare we see our money going to others and not really to ourselves, but when the Finns pay their taxes to support welfare they see that money going to themselves. When welfare is seen like Social Security - you pay in with taxes and you take out when you have a child, when you need help with child care for a year, etc - then people don't mind but when people pay into welfare and the benefits go primarily to others - single women, minorities, then support tanks.

So I don't honestly believe that the issue is welfare, it's diversity. I'm going to put up 9 charts here (I know, that's a lot) but I think that they paint a stark portrait of eroding social trust.

The first one deals with how people volunteer and socialize with others. Remember on the Honeymooners and the Flintstones where the guys would always be going to lodge meetings or be on bowling teams? Even activities like inviting Marge and Homer over for an evening of Canasta or Bridge. As diversity in society increased these social activities decreased.

Same with giving to charity. As society started changing in terms of multiculturalism people were less and less willing to help their neighbor.

Same decline is seen in terms of how much we trust society and civic institutions. As diversity increased with the immigration reform bill, trust declined. Notice the more rapid decline in children - they, after all, are on the front lines of the diversity wave - there are more minority children than there are minority adults in the workplace. This year 50% of the children entering public schools will be non-white.

The area of highest trust and greatest levels of civic engagement and highest school performance and so on are the areas with the least amount of racial diversity.

Schools work best, indicating parents are happy, the schools are doing their job, the taxes are well spent, and lack of diversity is key.

Same with measures of child welfare:

Less diversity equals higher social capital and less crime:

Even health outcomes are improved in high social capital, low diversity states:

And we also see a more fair economic distribution, not via government spending but simply through how the economy works - there aren't many poor welfare mothers and gang members and street bums, etc to drag down the bottom of the economic scale, thus widening the gap:

So, the Tea Party, and the Republicans not afraid of polls and media, advance the notion that we should DRAMATICALLY reduce the welfare state (gee, isn't working for a wage better for the economy and our neighbors than sitting at home playing video games?), and even a subset of them, of which I am an adherent, desire that EVERYONE pay taxes, albeit at a lessor rate for most current tax-payers.

If welfare is reduced we get an immediate band-aid to the gaping wound but does that heal the problem? The same social environment is still in place. The same people are still there but now they don't have welfare. What's the young single mother going to do? She doesn't vanish.

I believe that people desire ties to community. Look at how our parents and grandparents lived back in the 1940s to 1970s. Kids walked to school and were safe. Kids played in the neighborhood and any parent on the block could/would look after them. Today a man who helps a child in the park has the mother calling the cops on him. I don't think anyone desires such a society. I think we all find the older society more appealing. So when we cut welfare that doesn't actually repair society for us, it doesn't make things better. All it does is remove an irritant, an unfairness - we no longer pay to support those we don't want to support.

Why does this not fly? Because the libs use taxation as a political tool, and manipulate the tax code such that more and more non-tax-paying folks vote democrat to keep Santa Claus in power. On topic, I disagree.....I don't want Santa Claus, or the corruption it invites. I want EQUALITY. The libs talk about equality all the time, but they don't mean it. True equality is that everyone pays an equal share of their contribution, i.e., labor. Fair tax, flat tax, whatever, but the current confiscatory policies that take from the haves and gives to the have-nots is not "equal" nor what the Framers envisioned (read the Federalist Papers).

I think that you've nailed the reason why liberals do what they do - they grow the size of government, thus creating more jobs for liberal nice white ladies to administer to the dependent class. It's about power and growing government, which liberals favor. All of that social capital documented above is a threat to government as envisioned by liberals.

Now to your point about equality, this is where I believe the social fracture of the nation plays out. Whites generally support equality of opportunity. Treat everyone equally, use the same laws and standards, tax everyone equally so that we all contribute to society. If you could get this to come about it would destroy society.

The reason society would be destroyed is because the losers in society also want equality but they want equality of outcomes. They don't care if the process is fair, they don't want to see winners when they are losing. This is a normal human feeling and its universal. There are losers in life in Sweden, in Finland and in the US. The reason those Nordic countries are more socially stable is because the losers could be anyone and the system they have cushions the blow. The loser could be your son or daughter or your nephew or niece and so you modify your position on what constitutes fairness. Here in the US the losers are generally blacks and Hispanics. Your totally fair system of equal opportunity essentially creates a racial caste system. A miniscule number of blacks and Hispanics would qualify to be physicians or engineers or lawyers, or be CEOs. The talented tenth would rise on their merit but most wouldn't.

Now comes the problem. Everyone gets to vote. Your perfectly fair equal opportunity society will get voted out by the majority and if not then serious social protest will arise.

There is no good middle ground between an equal opportunity society and an equal outcomes society. This is what is eating away at people's perceptions of societal health. The easy culprit to spot is welfare spending but that's the band-aid put on your gangrenous limb.

If people want to improve the health of the society that they live in, that is improve its social capital levels then they need to forthrightly address the multiculturalism problem and reduce diversity in their living environment. I don't see how the reforms to governance can fix that problem. This is why I think secession will ultimately be the path that needs to be taken.

 

[Two Thumbs]

hmm

I used to think that voting mattered, then I voted for the lesser of Two evils, then it dawned on me that I'm still voting for evil

I no longer think we can vote in a fix.

secession seems so extreme and dangerous and what makes anyone think it would really be that better?

the leftist elites would still shit on eht countryside. I've had pals from OR and WA, the cities shit on the burbs constantly.


just need to water the tree, get rid of DC and start over with rookies. a peaceful coop.

 

[Rikurzhen]

secession seems so extreme and dangerous and what makes anyone think it would really be that better?

Czechoslovakia split into Slovakia and the Czech Republic and both populations now report higher levels of satisfaction.

It's kind of like a battling married couple who are staying together for the sake of their ADULT children. When they finally do split, everyone is better off.

Liberals can have a part of the US. They can have Obamacare on steroids, they can boost welfare spending, they can have maternity leaves, they can have subsidized daycare, they can have full gender quotas in the workplace, they can have all the minority populations of the US to boost their diversity levels, they can implement full government control of desegregating neighborhoods to insure that every street has 30% black, 30% white, 30% Hispanic, 5% Asian and 5% Other population, they can outlaw private schools and make every kid attend public school, they can integrate neighborhoods by income, so that poor ghetto blacks live next to hipster white MBA and Museum curators, etc. They can have open borders and generous asylum policies for Muslims from the Middle East. They can cut defense spending to the bone:

Liberals can have their dream society.

Normal people can then be left alone to live away from liberals.

Like the Czechs and the Slovaks, everyone would be happier.

 

[francoHFW]

OP- That would be "patriot" RW brainwashed hater dupes/ugly Americans/racist functional shytteheads- now being cut loose by the GOP...go Bills.

 

[Youch]

I think what it all boils down to for most folks is the welfare state. Welfare, being a vote buying schemes as obviously politicians care naught for the individual outside the voting booth (and even then, libs are famous for manipulating the voting process 'cause their ideology is not always appealing).

As I already noted, I'm sensing that people are tuning into a shriveling of the soul of the nation buy they can't articulate exactly what ails us or they can but feel it impolite to speak of it. You point to welfare and so do many other people. However there are people in Iceland and Finland who enthusiastically support welfare spending and they like the society that they've created. Social scientists now understand why we don't like it and other countries do - when we pay for welfare we see our money going to others and not really to ourselves, but when the Finns pay their taxes to support welfare they see that money going to themselves. When welfare is seen like Social Security - you pay in with taxes and you take out when you have a child, when you need help with child care for a year, etc - then people don't mind but when people pay into welfare and the benefits go primarily to others - single women, minorities, then support tanks.

So I don't honestly believe that the issue is welfare, it's diversity. I'm going to put up 9 charts here (I know, that's a lot) but I think that they paint a stark portrait of eroding social trust.

The first one deals with how people volunteer and socialize with others. Remember on the Honeymooners and the Flintstones where the guys would always be going to lodge meetings or be on bowling teams? Even activities like inviting Marge and Homer over for an evening of Canasta or Bridge. As diversity in society increased these social activities decreased.

Same with giving to charity. As society started changing in terms of multiculturalism people were less and less willing to help their neighbor.

Same decline is seen in terms of how much we trust society and civic institutions. As diversity increased with the immigration reform bill, trust declined. Notice the more rapid decline in children - they, after all, are on the front lines of the diversity wave - there are more minority children than there are minority adults in the workplace. This year 50% of the children entering public schools will be non-white.

The area of highest trust and greatest levels of civic engagement and highest school performance and so on are the areas with the least amount of racial diversity.

Schools work best, indicating parents are happy, the schools are doing their job, the taxes are well spent, and lack of diversity is key.

Same with measures of child welfare:

Less diversity equals higher social capital and less crime:

Even health outcomes are improved in high social capital, low diversity states:

And we also see a more fair economic distribution, not via government spending but simply through how the economy works - there aren't many poor welfare mothers and gang members and street bums, etc to drag down the bottom of the economic scale, thus widening the gap:

So, the Tea Party, and the Republicans not afraid of polls and media, advance the notion that we should DRAMATICALLY reduce the welfare state (gee, isn't working for a wage better for the economy and our neighbors than sitting at home playing video games?), and even a subset of them, of which I am an adherent, desire that EVERYONE pay taxes, albeit at a lessor rate for most current tax-payers.

If welfare is reduced we get an immediate band-aid to the gaping wound but does that heal the problem? The same social environment is still in place. The same people are still there but now they don't have welfare. What's the young single mother going to do? She doesn't vanish.

I believe that people desire ties to community. Look at how our parents and grandparents lived back in the 1940s to 1970s. Kids walked to school and were safe. Kids played in the neighborhood and any parent on the block could/would look after them. Today a man who helps a child in the park has the mother calling the cops on him. I don't think anyone desires such a society. I think we all find the older society more appealing. So when we cut welfare that doesn't actually repair society for us, it doesn't make things better. All it does is remove an irritant, an unfairness - we no longer pay to support those we don't want to support.

Why does this not fly? Because the libs use taxation as a political tool, and manipulate the tax code such that more and more non-tax-paying folks vote democrat to keep Santa Claus in power. On topic, I disagree.....I don't want Santa Claus, or the corruption it invites. I want EQUALITY. The libs talk about equality all the time, but they don't mean it. True equality is that everyone pays an equal share of their contribution, i.e., labor. Fair tax, flat tax, whatever, but the current confiscatory policies that take from the haves and gives to the have-nots is not "equal" nor what the Framers envisioned (read the Federalist Papers).

I think that you've nailed the reason why liberals do what they do - they grow the size of government, thus creating more jobs for liberal nice white ladies to administer to the dependent class. It's about power and growing government, which liberals favor. All of that social capital documented above is a threat to government as envisioned by liberals.

Now to your point about equality, this is where I believe the social fracture of the nation plays out. Whites generally support equality of opportunity. Treat everyone equally, use the same laws and standards, tax everyone equally so that we all contribute to society. If you could get this to come about it would destroy society.

The reason society would be destroyed is because the losers in society also want equality but they want equality of outcomes. They don't care if the process is fair, they don't want to see winners when they are losing. This is a normal human feeling and its universal. There are losers in life in Sweden, in Finland and in the US. The reason those Nordic countries are more socially stable is because the losers could be anyone and the system they have cushions the blow. The loser could be your son or daughter or your nephew or niece and so you modify your position on what constitutes fairness. Here in the US the losers are generally blacks and Hispanics. Your totally fair system of equal opportunity essentially creates a racial caste system. A miniscule number of blacks and Hispanics would qualify to be physicians or engineers or lawyers, or be CEOs. The talented tenth would rise on their merit but most wouldn't.

Now comes the problem. Everyone gets to vote. Your perfectly fair equal opportunity society will get voted out by the majority and if not then serious social protest will arise.

There is no good middle ground between an equal opportunity society and an equal outcomes society. This is what is eating away at people's perceptions of societal health. The easy culprit to spot is welfare spending but that's the band-aid put on your gangrenous limb.

If people want to improve the health of the society that they live in, that is improve its social capital levels then they need to forthrightly address the multiculturalism problem and reduce diversity in their living environment. I don't see how the reforms to governance can fix that problem. This is why I think secession will ultimately be the path that needs to be taken.

Excellent post.

Nevertheless, I am an adherent to the Constitution. Reduce the size and scope of the federal government, reduce dependency, give back the power of the states and the individual, and let the chips fall where they may. That is the mechanics. That is freedom. That is indivudailty. Get rid of the al the subsidies and all the special interests..... everyone and everything equal. But the poor (voters) don't want that and the politicians know that full well. THAT is our problem. Liberalism!!!

Politically, it'll never happen. Just look at what happened to Romney when he dared state (in a private manner, mind you) that fully 47% of the country would never vote conservative because they are recipients of freebies, government cheese, Santa Clause. Half the country is dependent on the welfare state. How pathetic are we? How doomed are we?

We are doomed.

 

[Jackson]

It would be interesting that, people would choose what "country" they wanted to live. I would choose to live in a country that taxed everyone, if positioned near the border of another country known for crossing illegals (ala Mexico) built a fence to keep illegals out, had a two year law for welfare recipients and no free lunches and breakfasts...Parents would be responsible again.

Just think, we could have a Justice Department that was fair to all on the state, a president who actually wanted to be president of his country...

We could make treaties, bringing manufacturing back to our country...

The possibilities are endless. I suppose so are the problems.

 

[francoHFW]

The problem is not dependency, it's the Boosh Second Pub World Depression and mindless Pub obstruction. Only the USA can wreck the world (great job, Pubbies), and only the USA can get it out of this. Outside of Germany (raping the EU), we're doing better than anyone else, despite you misinformed dingbats....

A fence is un-American and useless. The only solution is a good SS/ID card and enforcement. Pass the gd Schumer/Lindsay Graham bill.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I think what it all boils down to for most folks is the welfare state. Welfare, being a vote buying schemes as obviously politicians care naught for the individual outside the voting booth (and even then, libs are famous for manipulating the voting process 'cause their ideology is not always appealing).

As I already noted, I'm sensing that people are tuning into a shriveling of the soul of the nation buy they can't articulate exactly what ails us or they can but feel it impolite to speak of it. You point to welfare and so do many other people. However there are people in Iceland and Finland who enthusiastically support welfare spending and they like the society that they've created. Social scientists now understand why we don't like it and other countries do - when we pay for welfare we see our money going to others and not really to ourselves, but when the Finns pay their taxes to support welfare they see that money going to themselves. When welfare is seen like Social Security - you pay in with taxes and you take out when you have a child, when you need help with child care for a year, etc - then people don't mind but when people pay into welfare and the benefits go primarily to others - single women, minorities, then support tanks.

So I don't honestly believe that the issue is welfare, it's diversity. I'm going to put up 9 charts here (I know, that's a lot) but I think that they paint a stark portrait of eroding social trust.

The first one deals with how people volunteer and socialize with others. Remember on the Honeymooners and the Flintstones where the guys would always be going to lodge meetings or be on bowling teams? Even activities like inviting Marge and Homer over for an evening of Canasta or Bridge. As diversity in society increased these social activities decreased.

Same with giving to charity. As society started changing in terms of multiculturalism people were less and less willing to help their neighbor.

Same decline is seen in terms of how much we trust society and civic institutions. As diversity increased with the immigration reform bill, trust declined. Notice the more rapid decline in children - they, after all, are on the front lines of the diversity wave - there are more minority children than there are minority adults in the workplace. This year 50% of the children entering public schools will be non-white.

The area of highest trust and greatest levels of civic engagement and highest school performance and so on are the areas with the least amount of racial diversity.

Schools work best, indicating parents are happy, the schools are doing their job, the taxes are well spent, and lack of diversity is key.

Same with measures of child welfare:

Less diversity equals higher social capital and less crime:

Even health outcomes are improved in high social capital, low diversity states:

And we also see a more fair economic distribution, not via government spending but simply through how the economy works - there aren't many poor welfare mothers and gang members and street bums, etc to drag down the bottom of the economic scale, thus widening the gap:

So, the Tea Party, and the Republicans not afraid of polls and media, advance the notion that we should DRAMATICALLY reduce the welfare state (gee, isn't working for a wage better for the economy and our neighbors than sitting at home playing video games?), and even a subset of them, of which I am an adherent, desire that EVERYONE pay taxes, albeit at a lessor rate for most current tax-payers.

If welfare is reduced we get an immediate band-aid to the gaping wound but does that heal the problem? The same social environment is still in place. The same people are still there but now they don't have welfare. What's the young single mother going to do? She doesn't vanish.

I believe that people desire ties to community. Look at how our parents and grandparents lived back in the 1940s to 1970s. Kids walked to school and were safe. Kids played in the neighborhood and any parent on the block could/would look after them. Today a man who helps a child in the park has the mother calling the cops on him. I don't think anyone desires such a society. I think we all find the older society more appealing. So when we cut welfare that doesn't actually repair society for us, it doesn't make things better. All it does is remove an irritant, an unfairness - we no longer pay to support those we don't want to support.

Why does this not fly? Because the libs use taxation as a political tool, and manipulate the tax code such that more and more non-tax-paying folks vote democrat to keep Santa Claus in power. On topic, I disagree.....I don't want Santa Claus, or the corruption it invites. I want EQUALITY. The libs talk about equality all the time, but they don't mean it. True equality is that everyone pays an equal share of their contribution, i.e., labor. Fair tax, flat tax, whatever, but the current confiscatory policies that take from the haves and gives to the have-nots is not "equal" nor what the Framers envisioned (read the Federalist Papers).

I think that you've nailed the reason why liberals do what they do - they grow the size of government, thus creating more jobs for liberal nice white ladies to administer to the dependent class. It's about power and growing government, which liberals favor. All of that social capital documented above is a threat to government as envisioned by liberals.

Now to your point about equality, this is where I believe the social fracture of the nation plays out. Whites generally support equality of opportunity. Treat everyone equally, use the same laws and standards, tax everyone equally so that we all contribute to society. If you could get this to come about it would destroy society.

The reason society would be destroyed is because the losers in society also want equality but they want equality of outcomes. They don't care if the process is fair, they don't want to see winners when they are losing. This is a normal human feeling and its universal. There are losers in life in Sweden, in Finland and in the US. The reason those Nordic countries are more socially stable is because the losers could be anyone and the system they have cushions the blow. The loser could be your son or daughter or your nephew or niece and so you modify your position on what constitutes fairness. Here in the US the losers are generally blacks and Hispanics. Your totally fair system of equal opportunity essentially creates a racial caste system. A miniscule number of blacks and Hispanics would qualify to be physicians or engineers or lawyers, or be CEOs. The talented tenth would rise on their merit but most wouldn't.

Now comes the problem. Everyone gets to vote. Your perfectly fair equal opportunity society will get voted out by the majority and if not then serious social protest will arise.

There is no good middle ground between an equal opportunity society and an equal outcomes society. This is what is eating away at people's perceptions of societal health. The easy culprit to spot is welfare spending but that's the band-aid put on your gangrenous limb.

If people want to improve the health of the society that they live in, that is improve its social capital levels then they need to forthrightly address the multiculturalism problem and reduce diversity in their living environment. I don't see how the reforms to governance can fix that problem. This is why I think secession will ultimately be the path that needs to be taken.

Excellent post.

Nevertheless, I am an adherent to the Constitution. Reduce the size and scope of the federal government, reduce dependency, give back the power of the states and the individual, and let the chips fall where they may. That is the mechanics. That is freedom. That is indivudailty. Get rid of the al the subsidies and all the special interests..... everyone and everything equal. But the poor (voters) don't want that and the politicians know that full well. THAT is our problem. Liberalism!!!

Politically, it'll never happen. Just look at what happened to Romney when he dared state (in a private manner, mind you) that fully 47% of the country would never vote conservative because they are recipients of freebies, government cheese, Santa Clause. Half the country is dependent on the welfare state. How pathetic are we? How doomed are we?

We are doomed.

Exactly. We are doomed. The pressure is going to keep building as the demographics of the nation continue to change. The two parties are going to become racialized. Minorities will dominate the Democratic Party and their mission will be to insure equal outcomes and extract wealth from white America to distribute to minorities factions. Republican will be the party of whites and will work to stop the building of an equal outcomes society and work to stop Democrats from stripping wealth and opportunities away from people who've earned them fairly by working hard and smart.

Multiculturalism. Free Markets. Democracy. Pick Two. With Three There Will Be Civil Failure.

 

[S.J.]

Secession may not even be an issue, a civil war might come first. The Democratic Party has fractured the Union. Every person who is granted a government check for doing nothing is going to be loyal to the party that gives them that check, and over the years the Democratic Party has secured enough votes to keep them in power. But the more people they "buy" with other people's money, the bigger the demand on the "other people" who are paying the tab and eventually the house of cards will collapse. When it does, the freeloaders will blame and attack the victims and the victims will fight back. That's when the proverbial shit will hit the fan.

 

[Lakhota]

Secession may not even be an issue, a civil war might come first. The Democratic Party has fractured the Union. Every person who is granted a government check for doing nothing is going to be loyal to the party that gives them that check, and over the years the Democratic Party has secured enough votes to keep them in power. But the more people they "buy" with other people's money, the bigger the demand on the "other people" who are paying the tab and eventually the house of cards will collapse. When it does, the freeloaders will blame and attack the victims and the victims will fight back. That's when the proverbial shit will hit the fan.

Spoken like a certified idiot. Red states are the ones sucking on government tit.