Time to call it quits?

The United States: Salvageable or Too Far Gone?

  • Our nation is strong, we will get through this together and work past our differences.

    Votes: 10 55.6%
  • Our divisions are too deep, best to dissolve the Union peacefully while we still can.

    Votes: 8 44.4%

  • Total voters
    18

NIGHTLORD40K

Active member
We could always give Texas back to Mexico. They have dibs, after all.
Territory won in armed conflict, as was nearly all habitable land on Earth at one time or another. There is no dibs, nor do populations, "indigenous" or otherwise have any inherent right to lands they lost through conflict or agreement. All human borders are artificial and only valid if there is a threat of violence at some level to enforce them.

What we are seeing at the Southern border is a form of infiltration warfare and soft colonization because there is insufficient political will to oppose it.

I think the hour is probably too late for Texas to stand alone, but, as a part of a larger coalition of states- perhaps.
 

roscoe

Active member
Territory won in armed conflict, as was nearly all habitable land on Earth at one time or another. There is no dibs, nor do populations, "indigenous" or otherwise have any inherent right to lands they lost through conflict or agreement. All human borders are artificial and only valid if there is a threat of violence at some level to enforce them.

I see you want to strip morality from politics. Nowadays most of us are no longer willing to simply apply the law of the strong over the weak. Certainly the Nazis and Japanese made a good run at it, but the rejection of that type of militarism formed the backbone of US foreign policy for the last 75 years.
 

NIGHTLORD40K

Active member
Reality is very seldom moral, but strength is always real. Not all strength is militaristic, either. Force, and the will to use it, can take many nonviolent forms- coercive, incentivized, economic, pressure to conform to societal norms, etc.

You know, Roscoe, Im surprised at you. I would have expected you Lefty's to jump at the chance to codify your Utopian vision for society without the need to convert, reeducate, or eliminate all the deplorable dregs you so clearly despise. Let them wallow in their backwards ways, guided by the ideals of their false God, right? They're all just a bunch of racist, homophobic, mouthbreathing, toothless rednecks anyway. Who needs them?

Here's the keys to the castle- go forth and show us how its done. Hell, Kalifornia is already halfway there. Prove to the world how enlightened you are and they will cast off the shackles of their individualism and beg to join you eventually, yes?

No, thats not good enough for the Left. It is not enough for others to do as they say- all must BELIEVE as they do or be destroyed. Coexistence is not possible with the unconverted.

I'm sorry, Mr.Smith, but 2+2 does, in fact, equal 5. Let's begin again, shall we?
 

roscoe

Active member
Reality is very seldom moral, but strength is always real. Not all strength is militaristic, either. Force, and the will to use it, can take many nonviolent forms- coercive, incentivized, economic, pressure to conform to societal norms, etc.

You know, Roscoe, Im surprised at you. I would have expected you Lefty's to jump at the chance to codify your Utopian vision for society without the need to convert, reeducate, or eliminate all the deplorable dregs you so clearly despise. Let them wallow in their backwards ways, guided by the ideals of their false God, right? They're all just a bunch of racist, homophobic, mouthbreathing, toothless rednecks anyway. Who needs them?

Here's the keys to the castle- go forth and show us how its done. Hell, Kalifornia is already halfway there. Prove to the world how enlightened you are and they will cast off the shackles of their individualism and beg to join you eventually, yes?

No, thats not good enough for the Left. It is not enough for others to do as they say- all must BELIEVE as they do or be destroyed. Coexistence is not possible with the unconverted.

I'm sorry, Mr.Smith, but 2+2 does, in fact, equal 5. Let's begin again, shall we?

It is funny how right-wingers are so quick to claim victim status on one hand, yet call out the liberals as snowflakes on the other. Right-wingers are happy enough to mock people who look or speak differently, but when they lose an election and their position is rejected by the electorate, suddenly they are the victims. Spare me. If you want to see a good example of the taunting, watch some Trump rallies. Trump fed on it, of course, encouraging the kind of in-group behavior we associate with classic fascism. (The contrast with the dignity of the McCain rallies was remarkable.)

Yes, my vision of society means people can marry whom they want and get the jobs they want, irrespective of how they look or their sex. I am old enough to remember when those things were not possible. I remember the Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) decision at the Supreme Court that held that consenting adults did not have a right to private conduct (not overturned until 2003). And I was a kid when Loving v. Virginia was decided, permitting interracial marriage. My mother fought through a lot of sexism to work as a professional in the 1970s. None of that struggle brings back fond memories.

You may not know enough of US history to be aware that the United States was founded as a secular democracy (the first in the world, actually). This is specifically enumerated in Article 6 and the 1st Amendment. Freedom of religion is a right, but freedom from established religion is the first line of the First Amendment. The founders were all to well aware of the danger of religion in politics - they had seen what the 30 Years War did to Europe.

So, if you use religion as a reason to tell people what to do, and whom to marry, that cuts no mustard with me. Religion was used as a justification for slavery (look up the Curse of Ham, and how it was used in the antebellum South), as well as telling Americans who they could or could not marry (black/white/gay/lesbian). I grew up in a religious household and went to religious school, but I decided early on that I was going to make my own decisions about what was right.

I don't live in California, nor do I want to. My blue state has a low crime rate, reasonable standards of living, and manages to do a decent job of protecting its citizens. I have the right to carry a gun (which sometimes I do). My kids walk home from school in safety and get along with their fellow students, who are decidedly of a different ethnic and racial background. I don't see some liberal hell hole where I live.

All this whining about how the right-wingers are suddenly feeling oppressed is pathetic. Read some history - it was always the right-wingers keeping other folks, typically of different races, oppressed. Just look up some Jim Crow history - voter suppression being a good example. The Southern Democrats even prevented all US servicemen abroad from voting during WW2 just to keep black servicemen from voting. Imagine preventing all ~5 million servicemen abroad from voting to keep a few hundred thousand black servicemen from exercising their franchise. That is the kind of heritage the right-wing can claim as their own.

So, if you want to talk ethics, or concrete policy, get to the heart of the matter. But don't whine because you feel suddenly marginalized after Trump lost.
 

Howland937

Active member
It is funny how right-wingers are so quick to claim victim status on one hand, yet call out the liberals as snowflakes on the other. Right-wingers are happy enough to mock people who look or speak differently, but when they lose an election and their position is rejected by the electorate, suddenly they are the victims. Spare me. If you want to see a good example of the taunting, watch some Trump rallies. Trump fed on it, of course, encouraging the kind of in-group behavior we associate with classic fascism. (The contrast with the dignity of the McCain rallies was remarkable.)

Yes, my vision of society means people can marry whom they want and get the jobs they want, irrespective of how they look or their sex. I am old enough to remember when those things were not possible. I remember the Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) decision at the Supreme Court that held that consenting adults did not have a right to private conduct (not overturned until 2003). And I was a kid when Loving v. Virginia was decided, permitting interracial marriage. My mother fought through a lot of sexism to work as a professional in the 1970s. None of that struggle brings back fond memories.

You may not know enough of US history to be aware that the United States was founded as a secular democracy (the first in the world, actually). This is specifically enumerated in Article 6 and the 1st Amendment. Freedom of religion is a right, but freedom from established religion is the first line of the First Amendment. The founders were all to well aware of the danger of religion in politics - they had seen what the 30 Years War did to Europe.

So, if you use religion as a reason to tell people what to do, and whom to marry, that cuts no mustard with me. Religion was used as a justification for slavery (look up the Curse of Ham, and how it was used in the antebellum South), as well as telling Americans who they could or could not marry (black/white/gay/lesbian). I grew up in a religious household and went to religious school, but I decided early on that I was going to make my own decisions about what was right.

I don't live in California, nor do I want to. My blue state has a low crime rate, reasonable standards of living, and manages to do a decent job of protecting its citizens. I have the right to carry a gun (which sometimes I do). My kids walk home from school in safety and get along with their fellow students, who are decidedly of a different ethnic and racial background. I don't see some liberal hell hole where I live.

All this whining about how the right-wingers are suddenly feeling oppressed is pathetic. Read some history - it was always the right-wingers keeping other folks, typically of different races, oppressed. Just look up some Jim Crow history - voter suppression being a good example. The Southern Democrats even prevented all US servicemen abroad from voting during WW2 just to keep black servicemen from voting. Imagine preventing all ~5 million servicemen abroad from voting to keep a few hundred thousand black servicemen from exercising their franchise. That is the kind of heritage the right-wing can claim as their own.

So, if you want to talk ethics, or concrete policy, get to the heart of the matter. But don't whine because you feel suddenly marginalized after Trump lost.
I don't disagree with you on most counts. There is a certain segment that has played the bully for years and now that the bully has gotten hit right back, they want to cry foul.

I would like some clarification though. By "right-winger" are you referring to anyone right of the left, right of center, or the outer edges of the right?

The reason I ask is because quite a few of the farther left have admonished anyone who doesn't lean as left as them as " not progressive enough" and anyone right of center as "right wingers"
It's been mentioned that anyone who voted for Trump should be ostracized and everyone who worked with or for his administration should be blacklisted from public service.

This retaliation mindset is only about a half- step away from the behavior we've seen repeatedly in totalitarian regimes: Exile of dissidents and imprisonment of political opponents.

ETA... I'm in no way insinuating that the threat of retaliation against people who disagree is one sided. There are lines that should never be crossed. I would like to know where your lines are drawn though.
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Active member
I don't disagree with you on most counts. There is a certain segment that has played the bully for years and now that the bully has gotten hit right back, they want to cry foul.

I would like some clarification though. By "right-winger" are you referring to anyone right of the left, right of center, or the outer edges of the right?

The reason I ask is because quite a few of the farther left have admonished anyone who doesn't lean as left as them as " not progressive enough" and anyone right of center as "right wingers"
It's been mentioned that anyone who voted for Trump should be ostracized and everyone who worked with or for his administration should be blacklisted from public service.

This retaliation mindset is only about a half- step away from the behavior we've seen repeatedly in totalitarian regimes: Exile of dissidents and imprisonment of political opponents.

ETA... I'm in no way insinuating that the threat of retaliation against people who disagree is one sided. There are lines that should never be crossed. I would like to know where your lines are drawn though.

By far right, I don't mean just any Republican - I supported John McCain and voted for him when I lived in Arizona. I mean the kind of race-baiting, identity-politics right-winger that appeared in large numbers about 4 years ago. They had a president who encouraged them and they figured it was their time. As I said before - you see it a lot in videos of Trump rallies. They enjoyed taunting people, calling them losers, snowflakes, shouting for lawmakers of color (all US citizens) to 'go back to their countries', etc. And now, when they have lost, they are shocked that anyone would call them out on their behavior.

If you want to see a study in leadership, take a look at this video of how McCain handled this type of person:

The contrast is shocking. Look how much dignity McCain had, and how he refused to stoop to what Trump and his crowds did regularly. That is what a real leader in a democracy looks like. Not a fascist in training shouting 'lock her up' to frothing crowds. No president has been as divisive as Trump, at least since Nixon, and that is why you never saw Republican organizations coming out against Bush 1 or 2, or Reagan, nor any Democratic organizations against their presidents. Trump was unusual, and by that I mean he really brought out the worst in some people.

I have friends who voted for Trump (more in 2016, a few in 2020) and we are still friends. They were mostly thinking their 401Ks would do better under Trump, even though that was misguided as well. People vote for candidates for all kinds of reasons, and so be it. But I am not going to apologize to the frothy crowds of chanting and taunting thugs because suddenly they feel marginalized.
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Active member
I don't disagree with you on most counts. There is a certain segment that has played the bully for years and now that the bully has gotten hit right back, they want to cry foul.

I would like some clarification though. By "right-winger" are you referring to anyone right of the left, right of center, or the outer edges of the right?

The reason I ask is because quite a few of the farther left have admonished anyone who doesn't lean as left as them as " not progressive enough" and anyone right of center as "right wingers"
It's been mentioned that anyone who voted for Trump should be ostracized and everyone who worked with or for his administration should be blacklisted from public service.

This retaliation mindset is only about a half- step away from the behavior we've seen repeatedly in totalitarian regimes: Exile of dissidents and imprisonment of political opponents.

ETA... I'm in no way insinuating that the threat of retaliation against people who disagree is one sided. There are lines that should never be crossed. I would like to know where your lines are drawn though.

But, yeah, the 'not progressive enough' crowd is how the Democrats lose Congress and the White House. They are mostly useful as a foil that the rest of us 'reasonable' folks can contrast with.
 

Howland937

Active member
But, yeah, the 'not progressive enough' crowd is how the Democrats lose Congress and the White House. They are mostly useful as a foil that the rest of us 'reasonable' folks can contrast with.
Thank you for clarifying. In reality it seems like most of the marginalizing of late is from the far left and far right, squeezing inward toward the middle.
Personally, I'm no fan of either extreme and have no desire for what they offer. Going backward is never the way, and it seems there's a large contingent that wishes that on all of us. However, "progressive" doesn't always add up to progress either.
 

roscoe

Active member
Thank you for clarifying. In reality it seems like most of the marginalizing of late is from the far left and far right, squeezing inward toward the middle.
Personally, I'm no fan of either extreme and have no desire for what they offer. Going backward is never the way, and it seems there's a large contingent that wishes that on all of us. However, "progressive" doesn't always add up to progress either.

Right. I would count as a 'progressive' when it comes to gay rights, marriage, etc., and for constraining the ability of govt. or business to hire/fire based on prejudice against any of these groups. However, I am a 'libertarian' for individual rights - freedom of speech, worship, association, gun rights, personal sexual rights, whatever. I have no sympathy for any group that has a philosophy (religion, membership in a political party, racial group, whatever) that uses their philosophy to try to repress others outside those groups. Maybe that makes me 'anti-group'.

But as an observation, certain groups have been repressed for so long that it is not to be unexpected that, when they finally get power, they flex their muscles a bit too much. It is part of the natural cycle of power and politics. The Irish and Italians did the same thing in their day (in New York, for example), once they got political power. It was once essentially impossible to advance in the CIA if you were not a white Catholic male. Italians once got preferential treatment for contracts in NYC. All these things were bad, but part of the historical cycle of power. Nowadays, people of color suddenly have power, and it is making some folks nervous. So be it . . .
 

theotherwaldo

Well-known member
I agree with almost everything that you just said.
Only a few points of disagreement, though.
I see no problem with gay marriage except where it is used as an attack on the beliefs and institutions that are important to other people. You are not going to change the minds of bigots or the faithful by attacking them... .

Another point is that people of color are not yet empowered. Most of their power is being held just out of reach by certain leaders and demagogues who claim to be empowering them - as long as the people follow their leaders properly. Those that are not proper followers are treated as traitors and heretics that must be destroyed.

Oddly enough, most of these self-appointed 'Leaders of the Oppressed' are not even members of the oppressed groups and don't seem to have any real sympathy or attachment to these people. Many have even spoken harshly or condescendingly about them in the past... until it appeared politically useful to pander to them... .
 

Howland937

Active member
All these things were bad, but part of the historical cycle of power. Nowadays, people of color suddenly have power, and it is making some folks nervous. So be it . . .
Nervous perhaps, in the case of folks accustomed to wielding the power that suddenly find themselves without. Then there are some who've never held power that are more resentful than anything. They draw the ire of certain groups who denounce privilege, while wondering if privilege means 2 paychecks away from foreclosure instead of just one. They're just putting their head down, working hard, treating everyone with common decency and trying to provide for their family. They come home from work, fix dinner...try to veg out in front of the TV for a bit before heading to bed to get ready to repeat the cycle. Then every channel they tune to tells them if they're straight and white, they're privileged and therefore owe everyone who isn't some type of penance.

So while I encourage everyone to get anything they can when they can, I also see the frustrations of people expected to pay for sins they've never commited.
 

roscoe

Active member
Nervous perhaps, in the case of folks accustomed to wielding the power that suddenly find themselves without. Then there are some who've never held power that are more resentful than anything. They draw the ire of certain groups who denounce privilege, while wondering if privilege means 2 paychecks away from foreclosure instead of just one. They're just putting their head down, working hard, treating everyone with common decency and trying to provide for their family. They come home from work, fix dinner...try to veg out in front of the TV for a bit before heading to bed to get ready to repeat the cycle. Then every channel they tune to tells them if they're straight and white, they're privileged and therefore owe everyone who isn't some type of penance.

So while I encourage everyone to get anything they can when they can, I also see the frustrations of people expected to pay for sins they've never commited.

This is the great tragedy of historical oppression. Slavery was outlawed, but the US Govt never did make Jefferson Davis break up his plantation into 40 acre parcels. After the end of Reconstruction, for another 100 years, blacks were kept from having any power or real wealth. One way to do this was for wealthy landowners to divide the poor - pitting the poor whites against the poor blacks. And it worked - poor whites have always been resentful of advancement by blacks, seeing them as an economic threat.

And you know what - they were. The pie is only so big, and if the wealthy won't let go of some of it, the small slice can only be divided up into so many bites. But none of that justifies keeping blacks from voting or owning property. Where the poor whites should have been pushing back against the systems keeping them all down, instead they responded (under some urging) by further persecuting the folks under them. This is the sentiment that Trump tapped into. And by calling for any attempt to make major changes that might benefit both poor blacks and whites 'socialism', he demonized any potential changes that would benefit the entire working class.

It is no accident that the Republicans have been the most responsible for the disappearance of unions in America. By keeping poor people divided and fighting with each other, they have completely eliminated their political and economic power. You should look up tax rates in the 1950s, when unions had political power and America was the manufacturing hub of the world. And look at the difference in wages between CEOs and average workers. Nothing like it is today. Right now, the wealthy own far more of the US than they have since before WW2.

I do feel for the average well-intentioned white wage worker who feels like he is being judged, but I can assure you, it is nothing compared to what poor blacks put up with since 1878. Imagine turning on the radio and hearing Amos N Andy or reading the newspaper with stories about the sexual aggressiveness of your people. Or having your entire section of Tulsa burned to the ground because someone falsely accused a random citizen of assaulting a white woman. And that was for more than 100 years.
 

M5-Shogun

New member
I am for a dissolution of the US. I believe that the values of places like the Bay Area are simply not those of places like Virginia Beach. Or Chicago to Palm Bay. I don't have all the answers, but I envision that the US will fragment into multiple smaller nations. It will happen in our lifetimes. Whether it's Texas going independent, or a complete breakup of the union, or a massive civil war that causes temporary divisions, something is coming. That something is NOT light.
 
Top