Instead Of Civil War

[FA_Q2]

Since succession has a zero percent probability, why would we do anything 'instead' of succession. We should simply ignore the asinine assertions around it?

Talk of succession is not new and is just as irrelevant as it has been over the last century. Instead of any of these asinine 'suggestions' you could just go vote.

What an idea, participate.

 

[Hum Dinger]

So, land does vote then.

Seriously?

No, people vote. The fact that there is disproportionate representation doesn't mean that land votes.

 

[FA_Q2]

Seriously?

No, people vote. The fact that there is disproportionate representation doesn't mean that land votes.

It does mean land has an influence.

Same shit, different method. The FACT is that land does matter in our system.

 

[candycorn]

They don't want to be tethered to shithole Democrat states. Besides, we're talking about some counties seceding from Oregon and joining Idaho. They aren't looking to secede from the United States.

Red states are the shit holes. The Arkansas state motto is, “What did we run out of first, windows or rocks?”

 

[Hum Dinger]

It does mean land has an influence.

Same shit, different method. The FACT is that land does matter in our system.

Texas has 2 Senators, Rhode Island has 2 Senators.

Please think before you post! (If that's possible)

 

[FA_Q2]

Texas has 2 Senators, Rhode Island has 2 Senators.

Please think before you post! (If that's possible)

And?

What I stated is objectively fact. Are you now contending that where someone is, aka land, does not effect vote tallies.

Interesting you tell me to think while making contradictory statements yourself. Try your own advice.

 

[d0gbreath]

Instead of civil war, and secession, what about a bake-off?

 

[g5000]

How about county by county secession instead? All counties in the country can secede and become part of a different state if they wish. All it would require would be for the county to vote to secede from their state and the state they want to become a part of has to vote for it as well. And, it has to be a state which would border the other state or a number of counties put together which altogether would border their new state. For example, the new Oregon and Idaho.

Secession: Why some in Oregon want to become part of Idaho

In a state dominated by progressive politics, some Oregonians east of the Cascade Mountains want to move the border so that their counties become part of Idaho, a more conservative state that more closely aligns with their values.

www.yahoo.com

The only "civil war" we are seeing is from sore loser titty babies whining incessantly on the internet.

 

[Independent thinker]

The only "civil war" we are seeing is from sore loser titty babies whining incessantly on the internet.

And you don't plan on being a whiny little baby if Trump wins in 2024?

 

[candycorn]

And you don't plan on being a whiny little baby if Trump wins in 2024?

Are you going to be a whiny little baby if he loses?

 

[Independent thinker]

Yes, TX needs to secede and then the rest of the US can celebrate.

And California needs to fall into the ocean and then the rest of the US can celebrate.

 

[Independent thinker]

Red states are the shit holes. The Arkansas state motto is, “What did we run out of first, windows or rocks?”

LOL. It is the blue cities and the blue states which are shitholes.

 

[Lone Wanderer]

Red states are the shit holes. The Arkansas state motto is, “What did we run out of first, windows or rocks?”

If red states are shitholes, then why are so many Americans leaving blue states for the red states? It's rare to see the opposite movement.

 

[candycorn]

If red states are shitholes, then why are so many Americans leaving blue states for the red states? It's rare to see the opposite movement.

Cheap costs of living is likely a good reason. Its the same reason there are over 5,000 Dollar General/Family Dollar/Dollar Tree stores... Does anyone like shopping there? Likely not. You shop there because its cheap. Its why Wal Mart does so well.

 

[Hum Dinger]

And?

What I stated is objectively fact. Are you now contending that where someone is, aka land, does not effect vote tallies.

Interesting you tell me to think while making contradictory statements yourself. Try your own advice.

Thanks for the brainless response, but if I have to point out that there is a huge difference between the land size of Texas and Rhode Island, then you've proven that either you're an idiot or just a BULLSHIT artist.

Either way, you're not worth continue this debate.

 

[MinTrut]

Civil war is not practical. Reps are usless and have zero organization or funding. Plus, dems own the military and most everything else. Peaceful means would be best. But peaceful means won't do a thing when the dems are involved. Can't reason with them. Military was supposed to have saved us...but no. Military fully supports the traitorous dems.


View attachment 824541

I’m inclined to think that the largest voting block - independents - will eventually tire of the duopoly game, and say that if we’re not given access, we’ll hold our own elections.

Then when our winning candidates aren’t seated...

Interesting times.

 

[FA_Q2]

Thanks for the brainless response, but if I have to point out that there is a huge difference between the land size of Texas and Rhode Island, then you've proven that either you're an idiot or just a BULLSHIT artist.

Either way, you're not worth continue this debate.

To stupid to understand I see.

You parrot the same stupid one liner that has been fed to you by bobble heads - land does not vote - even though it is a brainless statement. In our system, land has an effect, there is a reason it does and the simple fact is that you cannot deal with that. That is why you have to run like a bitch. You have never thought more about the tag line past 'democracy good.'

 

[FA_Q2]

I’m inclined to think that the largest voting block - independents - will eventually tire of the duopoly game, and say that if we’re not given access, we’ll hold our own elections.

Then when our winning candidates aren’t seated...

Interesting times.

Unlikely. Parties are a natural extension of the system itself. I am unaware of a system in existance that does not have parties. In a WTA system, you are going to have 2 parties that form. More in systems with proportional representation but still parties. The only real change is when one falls and is replaced by a new one.

 

[Lesh]

Jesus...Republicans are such whiny little pussies

 

[MinTrut]

Unlikely. Parties are a natural extension of the system itself. I am unaware of a system in existance that does not have parties.

There will need to be a party, yes.

In a WTA system, you are going to have 2 parties that form.

They can let the largest voter group - independents - play, or a separate system can be evolved.

When those two systems clash...

Interesting times.

More in systems with proportional representation but still parties. The only real change is when one falls and is replaced by a new one.

I’m not sure you understand what I was getting at, but thanks for replying.