If possible, should we peacefully split the country?

[Disir]

The Constitution establishes the country.
So if you uphold the COTUS, you uphold the US. It's what defines the US.

I disagree. The country is separate from the Constitution.

The country can...and I believe the case can be made for 'has'... easily diverge from the constraints of the Constitution.

If the country ignores the Constitution, which do you support?

I don't accept your separate reality as a premise.

If you remove the Constitution --- you don't have a country. If you don't have a country, then you also don't have a Constitution for it. Can't have the one without the other unless you're running a military dick-tatorship or a kingdom.

Does the UK have a constitution? Germany?

Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So the UK isn't a country. Is that what you're saying?

It's actually four countries: Great Britain, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. They are governed as one.

But, that's not what I was after. They don't have a constitution. There is no single document like we have. There are hundreds of documents.

So you admit that your claim:

"If you remove the Constitution --- you don't have a country."​

is false.

I never made the claim. You posed the question to Pogo (I think): Does the UK have a constitution? Germany?

And I went: I-know-I-know-I-know.

You chimed in to defend him/her.

Nope. I chimed in because I knew the answer.


And it was killing me.

Fingerboy still hasn't come to grips with the fact that he's on my Ignore List, has been for --- well, since "newly discovered photographs" were "discovered" in the Wisconsin historical archives nine decades ago. So I didn't get his question but will happily defer to your answer(s). Meanwhile we watch Fingerboy melt down yet again.

I had him on ignore for years but took him off a couple years ago. He's calmed down. I've calmed down. He's actually pretty ok.

 

[Utilitarian]

Sorry but that's just about the dumbest idea ever.

Well, I appreciate your constructive criticism, but your response is about what I expected.

 

[Utilitarian]

Leaving is expensive, but it is probably the safest option in the long run.

Personally, I've been looking at Poland, but I have to learn the language first.

98% ethnically Poles. Way to flee diversity.

Not everyone likes diversity. In fact, most non-whites don't like it, hence why most non-white majority countries aren't very diverse. Poland just happens to be a majority white country that isn't very diverse.

 

[Utilitarian]

I'm not affiliated with any bunch or party. And I'm actually not
conservative on all policies. I just don't care for a lot of modern progressive social views.

Like civil rights?

Depends on how you're defining civil rights. The concept made sense all the way through gay marriage. Shortly after the Supreme Court supported gay marriage, the left went a bit insane and started pushing the gender identity nonsense and then embraced "anti-racism", which is actually just racism against whites.

 

[beagle9]

I voted that "I think we can make it together", but only under the right leadership can it be done. We don't have that, and because of that we have a huge portion of the voters being led in the wrong way. It's really sad, because just a few or more decades ago we all got along great, then the radicals finally got enough power to destroy everything they touch. The internet has empowered devil's (evil characters), straight out of hell, where as Satan is smiling like a mule eating briars these days. That's alright though, because his influential days are numbered. Enjoy the evilness for the short time that it last leftist, because the time is drawing near.

 

[Utilitarian]

Democracy lives

It survived Trumps attempts to stack the courts with Trump loyalists
It survived Trump bullying of local election officials
It survived Trumps propaganda campaign
It survived an attack from a TRUMP mob

Keep telling yourself that.

 

[Utilitarian]

In rural NC, they were pretty widespread in the 90s. Once Walmart got here, about half of them died by the late 2000s. They still exist here, but they tend to be in really small towns now.

It might be a moot point by now, especially with how COVID restrictions have, yet again, favored big business over small business.

Walmart is just the lefts whipping boy. The big threat to all stores including Walmart is the internet. More and more people shop online than ever, and it's only going to grow in the future.

I can agree with that. Walmart is slowly falling to Amazon. Bezos will soon own this country to the same degree as Wall Street.

 

[beagle9]

In rural NC, they were pretty widespread in the 90s. Once Walmart got here, about half of them died by the late 2000s. They still exist here, but they tend to be in really small towns now.

It might be a moot point by now, especially with how COVID restrictions have, yet again, favored big business over small business.

Walmart is just the lefts whipping boy. The big threat to all stores including Walmart is the internet. More and more people shop online than ever, and it's only going to grow in the future.

I can agree with that. Walmart is slowly falling to Amazon. Bezos will soon own this country to the same degree as Wall Street.

Scary stuff, but not really. It's gonna go the way it's gonna go, but just getting the soul right with the Lord is the most important these days, and that goes for every race and human being in the world today. We are living in some evil times.

 

[Utilitarian]

Anytime you lump Colorado with Kansas your research falls apart. Same goes for putting NM in the same room with TX.

There will NEVER be a peaceful separation of the states. Each one depends on the others but if you ask them, they'll deny it.

My post wasn't aimed at being the last word in how to divide the states. I was just giving a potential design for it.

I do agree that we won't likely have a peaceful separation of the states, however.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I voted that "I think we can make it together", but only under the right leadership can it be done.

The left keeps drifting further and further into Socialism/ Communism. There is no middle-ground between constitutionalism and Communism. The best leadership in the world cannot reconcile the two. The only way is for one side to capitulate to the other, which the Democrats demand.

This is why the subject of separating into two countries is an important discussion. As when I posted the topic myself just a few years ago, people on the right have much less of a problem with it than people on the left who totally resent the idea. Why is that? Because we know our way is the best, and they know their way is the worst; it only looks good on paper much like Communism always has.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The concept made sense all the way through gay marriage. Shortly after the Supreme Court supported gay marriage, the left went a bit insane and started pushing the gender identity nonsense.

Of course they did, and I seen it coming. As the great late Rush Limbaugh used to say, I know liberals like I know every inch of my glorious naked body. I knew this gender thing would not stop at gay marriage. When the claims they only want to get to point A, and they'll be happy, it's very short lived. From point A, they fight to get to point B.

Why is this important to understand? Because I make the same point when they currently talk about restricting firearms to law abiding citizens. If anybody thinks they will stop at registering all guns and obtaining a federal gun license to own one, they have no idea how liberals operate.

 

[Utilitarian]

The left keeps drifting further and further into Socialism/ Communism. There is no middle-ground between constitutionalism and Communism. The best leadership in the world cannot reconcile the two. The only way is for one side to capitulate to the other, which the Democrats demand.

This is why the subject of separating into two countries is an important discussion. As when I posted the topic myself just a few years ago, people on the right have much less of a problem with it than people on the left who totally resent the idea. Why is that? Because we know our way is the best, and they know their way is the worst; it only looks good on paper much like Communism always has.

The social left bothers me more than the economic left. Socialism/communism isn't likely to go anywhere, since the elites will only go so far with that aspect of things. The social left is the bigger problem, because they amplify racial tensions while pushing insane narratives (like the ever-expanding gender nonsense).

The social left also serves the elite by keeping the working class divided, so that corporations can continue to suck up federal funds and pull us into wars while we aren't paying attention.

That being said, what the elite seem to be aiming for is a UBI version of socialism to keep the masses complacent.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not everyone likes diversity. In fact, most non-whites don't like it, hence why most non-white majority countries aren't very diverse. Poland just happens to be a majority white country that isn't very diverse.

And because of that, most people in Poland are very happy. Most white people here that live among whites are happy.

 

[Utilitarian]

Of course they did, and I seen it coming. As the great late Rush Limbaugh used to say, I know liberals like I know every inch of my glorious naked body. I knew this gender thing would not stop at gay marriage. When the claims they only want to get to point A, and they'll be happy, it's very short lived. From point A, they fight to get to point B.

Why is this important to understand? Because I make the same point when they currently talk about restricting firearms to law abiding citizens. If anybody thinks they will stop at registering all guns and obtaining a federal gun license to own one, they have no idea how liberals operate.

Good point. But even so, I didn't have any reason to be against gay marriage. Although, what conservatives could have countered with would be to remove all government from marriage. You could just make civil unions the only state recognition of marriage, with gay ones in addition to straight ones. This would let churches handle marriage more directly and without state interference.

 

[Utilitarian]

Not everyone likes diversity. In fact, most non-whites don't like it, hence why most non-white majority countries aren't very diverse. Poland just happens to be a majority white country that isn't very diverse.

And because of that, most people in Poland are very happy. Most white people here that live among whites are happy.

Pretty much. It's natural for people of any race to prefer the company of their own group. Most people have an ingroup bias, because it was advantageous to have one in terms of evolution.

The only group with an outgroup bias seems to be white progressives. That's very unnatural and rather self-destructive.

That being said, I do have friends of other groups. The area I live in is somewhat diverse.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Good point. But even so, I didn't have any reason to be against gay marriage. Although, what conservatives could have countered with would be to remove all government from marriage. You could just make civil unions the only state recognition of marriage, with gay ones in addition to straight ones. This would let churches handle marriage more directly and without state interference.

I don't think it would have made much of a difference. Let's be honest, most of the marital benefits normal people get can be achieved by any couple with a good lawyer. In fact, during the debate under the Bush administration, where did most of the complaints come from about being excluded from marriage? That's right, from California, where they had civil unions for several years.

It's not about marriage so much, it's about being socially rejected. They came to the conclusion that if they can force their marriage down our throats, their lifestyle would have to be acceptable to the general public. It really doesn't work that way, but it's not about reality, it's about mentality. In fact more people are repulsed by two gays being married than they were about them being together without marriage today.

 

[candycorn]

Sorry but that's just about the dumbest idea ever.

Well, I appreciate your constructive criticism, but your response is about what I expected.

I would imagine you get that response quite a bit so yeah, I would think that you would expect it.

So 6 standing armies? Lets start there.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Pretty much. It's natural for people of any race to prefer the company of their own group. Most people have an ingroup bias, because it was advantageous to have one in terms of evolution.

The only group with an outgroup bias seems to be white progressives. That's very unnatural and rather self-destructive.

That being said, I do have friends of other groups. The area I live in is somewhat diverse.

I would strongly disagree with that, particularly with blacks. When blacks get the slightest chance to move into white areas, they take it. It doesn't matter if it's through some government social program or by their own accord because they make enough money to afford to. Blacks can't wait to get away from each other. They are the only race in the world that strives to move away from their own kind.

 

[Utilitarian]

I don't think it would have made much of a difference. Let's be honest, most of the marital benefits normal people get can be achieved by any couple with a good lawyer. In fact, during the debate under the Bush administration, where did most of the complaints come from about being excluded from marriage? That's right, from California, where they had civil unions for several years.

It's not about marriage so much, it's about being socially rejected. They came to the conclusion that if they can force their marriage down our throats, their lifestyle would have to be acceptable to the general public. It really doesn't work that way, but it's not about reality, it's about mentality. In fact more people are repulsed by two gays being married than they were about them being together without marriage today.

I would agree that the priority seems to have shifted from tolerance to approval. This is especially true with the transgender stuff. It's not enough to just let people live however they want to. The LGBT demands approval and accommodations (like the nonsense happening to women's sports).

 

[Utilitarian]

Sorry but that's just about the dumbest idea ever.

Well, I appreciate your constructive criticism, but your response is about what I expected.

I would imagine you get that response quite a bit so yeah, I would think that you would expect it.

So 6 standing armies? Lets start there.

You made your stance on this clear. Why would I bother discussing it further with you? Your tone in general tends to be condescending, so you can interact with someone else.