bularry said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Threads like this are so 2 centuries ago. But sure, go ahead and indulge in your war fantasies.

---

There are many examples of such internal chaos over the last 50 years .

And the US is not immune.

---

I"m ready for all the examples that are applicable to the United States.

---

Every example involving humans is applicable to the United States.

bularry said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Should it happen? Arent both sides completely sick of each other? We are closer to civil war than we are getting along with each other. Splitting up into red & blue is so much netter than war.

Would you be fore or against?

I vote yes, separate. The alternatives are ugly. And this way everyone gets what they want.

---

I vote no

---

What are your reasons ?

Really believe this country have avoid a cultural blood bath down the road ?

---

My long term view of the country is pessimistic. I think the country is in irreversible decline because of financial and societal decisions. I just don't believe we divide up before we augur in. See what happens when the grid goes down or the financial system crashes.

---

Thank you for your response .

Agreed...at this point very few Americans would support a division of the country . Very few countries have ever split up peacefully . Usually results in a horrific blood bath as the have nots don't want to lose the financial support of the haves .

Agreed......when ( not if ) the financial collapse occurs ....when food is in short supply......then we will see.
It is unfortunate states can not legally leave the union . Would avoid a lot of senseless killing .

---

why do you want states to leave the union? how is that feasible?

---

Not a case of 'want'.

Only way it would be the least bit feasible without massive bloodshed would be a peaceful partition with people allowed to go into the areas that best represent their cultural priorities .


Do I expect this to happen...of course not.

What I do expect is basically a repeat of the Spanish Civil War of 1936.

bularry said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Forget splitting the military or nukes, try splitting the National Debt and the heads of the Left will explode. The concept of paying your bills is beyond their comprehension.

---

right, R's don't believe in debt

---

everyone's leadership believes in debt if it will get them votes, money, power or any combination of those three.

Thee University said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

The calls for a war or a division of states comes from a loud but very, very small group with a social media megaphone. Call 10 of your acquaintances today and ask them if the country should separate into 2 of more countries. I have and nobody I know even understands the question.
The USA has always had regions that were different economically and socially. A few examples come to mind.
Before the Civil War the NE was the population and financial center of the country. The regions were very different
After the Civil War the South was in a Depression for decades. The NE prospered. The regions were very different.
Now the population is moving south and southwest. The NE is socially very different from the south and SW. I won't be telling NYC residents how to live. I think their choices are destructive in the long run, but c'est la vie.

My long term view of the country is pessimistic. I think the country is in irreversible decline because of financial and societal decisions. I just don't believe we divide up before we augur in. See what happens when the grid goes down or the financial system crashes.

---

Your 10 acquaintances most likely do not get involved nor really care about the growing division in our country. If they are paying attention they understand the question.

Before the Civil War the NE was taxing the p!ss out of the South.
After the Civil War reconstruction, at the hands of the North, made certain the South was depressed and the North prospered.

The North has screwed themselves so those with any sense at all are moving South.

We need a Civil War. Amicable if possible. I'm sure there will be the usual limp-wristed Antifa/BLM/liberal pukes stirring it up but I think it is the only way to solve our division unless we experience a catastrophic event that wipes out millions of Americans.

I'll help move some of the trash out of Austin/Central Texas.

---

Brave talk

When I think about the possibility of the USA splitting up I find the task of splitting Social Security, Medicare, the VA Benefits, and the state to state infrastructure, to be quite daunting.

Guy Noir said:

---

When I think about the possibility of the USA splitting up I find the task of splitting Social Security, Medicare, the VA Benefits, the state to state infrastructure to be quite daunting.

---

All liberals head to Antarctica. We'll send them all the $ owed to them.

If everyone wants to, then they can find a way - even on the hard stuff like social security, national debt, etc...

Split Gone Wrong: Yugoslavia
Split Basically Done Right: Czechoslovakia

Angling to Establish a New Precedent in Bad Dissolution: USA

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Should it happen? Arent both sides completely sick of each other? We are closer to civil war than we are getting along with each other. Splitting up into red & blue is so much netter than war.

Would you be fore or against?

I vote yes, separate. The alternatives are ugly. And this way everyone gets what they want.

---

I vote no

---

What are your reasons ?

Really believe this country have avoid a cultural blood bath down the road ?

---

The calls for a war or a division of states comes from a loud but very, very small group with a social media megaphone. Call 10 of your acquaintances today and ask them if the country should separate into 2 of more countries. I have and nobody I know even understands the question.
The USA has always had regions that were different economically and socially. A few examples come to mind.
Before the Civil War the NE was the population and financial center of the country. The regions were very different
After the Civil War the South was in a Depression for decades. The NE prospered. The regions were very different.
Now the population is moving south and southwest. The NE is socially very different from the south and SW. I won't be telling NYC residents how to live. I think their choices are destructive in the long run, but c'est la vie.

My long term view of the country is pessimistic. I think the country is in irreversible decline because of financial and societal decisions. I just don't believe we divide up before we augur in. See what happens when the grid goes down or the financial system crashes.

---

These questions have been polled from time to time and the numbers, depending on the way the question is worded range between 20-40%.

---

I'm not saying my friends & acquaintances are a representative sample of the US population.

Do you have a link to the polls handy. I'm curious how they asked the question

---

I'll have to fire up the laptop to get some links. At one point in the Obama years, Texas secession got to 39% in one poll. My assessment at the time was that ANY 2-digit number was a signal of struggling social contract.

Usually, the question is asked in context of how likely the respondent thought civil war would occur. I don't recall a number below 20%. Again, any 2-digit number is significant = "what the hell is going on here?"

I know I have a link to Kessler's "Cold Civil War" article. It is one of several of the type which echoes themes I've posted here. Liberals have left Classical Liberalism and allied with Progressives, who control most of the culture producing institutions, which puts both in a feedback loop which tells progressives they've won the argument and makes liberals mis-perceive that they are near the political center. And other pathologies flow from there. Capital is always the glue. It will play to the last card to avoid the fight.

At the moment, capital thinks it can pander to progressives on culture and does not yet perceive the threat that conservatives and working class see right up in their grille. But drag shows at school are galvanizing things quickly. Almost every capitalist is a parent or grandparent.

There is very, very little common ground between right and left at the moment. Regime politics. One side tries to undo the work of the other, work originally done in no small part to limit the other.

There will be no compromise. One side will win, and the other will lose. Outcome uncertain but I like our chances. It would be game over if the neverTrumpers would quit virtue posturing

Porteroso said:

---

Threads like this are so 2 centuries ago. But sure, go ahead and indulge in your war fantasies.

---

I agree that dividing the country by land or fighting an actual Civil War 2.0 are well out of the question,

But I would submit that we should discuss the issue, with a focus on what can be done to restore basic civility and ability to live and let live, because those have been gone a long time now, and if we don't rebuild them we are all in for a bad time ahead.

See my other thread on all the food production facilities being destroyed.

ATL Bear said:

---

The Republic is worth fighting for. I've seen too many civil war torn regions to believe a break up is worth having. We have misunderstood privilege without perspective, and our grievances are trivial compared to the smashing of the golden goose. We've lost an understanding of freedom and exchanged it for the concept of egalitarianism. We are not nor ever should be the latter.

But there is one universal nation destroyer that I never would have thought would creep up in this country, but it is showing it's ugly face. Food insecurity will devour civil societies. As Lenin famously said, "every society is only three meals away from chaos". While we are far from food riots now, some of the tell tale shortages are becoming more frequent, and affordability has come into play. People will toss all sorts of politics to the side when it comes to basic needs, and we're showing a propensity to riot over anything these days.

The pandemic has also fundamentally changed the previously famous work ethic of this nation and aligned more society to government reliance. It's a dangerous path we are pursuing,

---

The Law of the Minimum may very well come into play in the USA. But food is not close to being the most scarce resource. Energy is far closer and with every attack on the energy sector gets closer.

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Should it happen? Arent both sides completely sick of each other? We are closer to civil war than we are getting along with each other. Splitting up into red & blue is so much netter than war.

Would you be fore or against?

I vote yes, separate. The alternatives are ugly. And this way everyone gets what they want.

---

I vote no

---

What are your reasons ?

Really believe this country have avoid a cultural blood bath down the road ?

---

The calls for a war or a division of states comes from a loud but very, very small group with a social media megaphone. Call 10 of your acquaintances today and ask them if the country should separate into 2 of more countries. I have and nobody I know even understands the question.
The USA has always had regions that were different economically and socially. A few examples come to mind.
Before the Civil War the NE was the population and financial center of the country. The regions were very different
After the Civil War the South was in a Depression for decades. The NE prospered. The regions were very different.
Now the population is moving south and southwest. The NE is socially very different from the south and SW. I won't be telling NYC residents how to live. I think their choices are destructive in the long run, but c'est la vie.

My long term view of the country is pessimistic. I think the country is in irreversible decline because of financial and societal decisions. I just don't believe we divide up before we augur in. See what happens when the grid goes down or the financial system crashes.

---

These questions have been polled from time to time and the numbers, depending on the way the question is worded range between 20-40%.

---

I'm not saying my friends & acquaintances are a representative sample of the US population.

Do you have a link to the polls handy. I'm curious how they asked the question

---

I'll have to fire up the laptop to get some links. At one point in the Obama years, Texas secession got to 39% in one poll. My assessment at the time was that ANY 2-digit number was a signal of struggling social contract.

Usually, the question is asked in context of how likely the respondent thought civil war would occur. I don't recall a number below 20%. Again, any 2-digit number is significant = "what the hell is going on here?"

I know I have a link to Kessler's "Cold Civil War" article. It is one of several of the type which echoes themes I've posted here. Liberals have left Classical Liberalism and allied with Progressives, who control most of the culture producing institutions, which puts both in a feedback loop which tells progressives they've won the argument and makes liberals mis-perceive that they are near the political center. And other pathologies flow from there. Capital is always the glue. It will play to the last card to avoid the fight.

At the moment, capital thinks it can pander to progressives on culture and does not yet perceive the threat that conservatives and working class see right up in their grille. But drag shows at school are galvanizing things quickly. Almost every capitalist is a parent or grandparent.

There is very, very little common ground between right and left at the moment. Regime politics. One side tries to undo the work of the other, work originally done in no small part to limit the other.

There will be no compromise. One side will win, and the other will lose. Outcome uncertain but I like our chances. It would be game over if the neverTrumpers would quit virtue posturing

---

I used to think your domestic policy was almost as nihilistic as your foreign policy, but I was wrong. It's worse!

Osodecentx said:

---

Thee University said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

The calls for a war or a division of states comes from a loud but very, very small group with a social media megaphone. Call 10 of your acquaintances today and ask them if the country should separate into 2 of more countries. I have and nobody I know even understands the question.
The USA has always had regions that were different economically and socially. A few examples come to mind.
Before the Civil War the NE was the population and financial center of the country. The regions were very different
After the Civil War the South was in a Depression for decades. The NE prospered. The regions were very different.
Now the population is moving south and southwest. The NE is socially very different from the south and SW. I won't be telling NYC residents how to live. I think their choices are destructive in the long run, but c'est la vie.

My long term view of the country is pessimistic. I think the country is in irreversible decline because of financial and societal decisions. I just don't believe we divide up before we augur in. See what happens when the grid goes down or the financial system crashes.

---

Your 10 acquaintances most likely do not get involved nor really care about the growing division in our country. If they are paying attention they understand the question.

Before the Civil War the NE was taxing the p!ss out of the South.
After the Civil War reconstruction, at the hands of the North, made certain the South was depressed and the North prospered.

The North has screwed themselves so those with any sense at all are moving South.

We need a Civil War. Amicable if possible. I'm sure there will be the usual limp-wristed Antifa/BLM/liberal pukes stirring it up but I think it is the only way to solve our division unless we experience a catastrophic event that wipes out millions of Americans.

I'll help move some of the trash out of Austin/Central Texas.

---

Brave talk

---

As is most of the chatter on this free message board.

But at least Thee is worth reading .

muddybrazos said:

---

I dont think we need to split up the country. We just need to operate more like 50 individual states and take away the power from the federal govt. The federal bureaucracy has gotten way out of hand and is not what the founders intended.

---

Depends on which founders you are speaking of. The folks who were Federalist, such as Hamilton and Adams, probably wouldn't agree with your statement.

muddybrazos said:

---

I dont think we need to split up the country. We just need to operate more like 50 individual states and take away the power from the federal govt. The federal bureaucracy has gotten way out of hand and is not what the founders intended.

---

This is true.

BearForce said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

I dont think we need to split up the country. We just need to operate more like 50 individual states and take away the power from the federal govt. The federal bureaucracy has gotten way out of hand and is not what the founders intended.

---

Depends on which founders you are speaking of. The folks who were Federalist, such as Hamilton and Adams, probably wouldn't agree with your statement.

---

Luckily we had the anti-Federalists who got us the Bill of Rights.

Redbrickbear said:

---

BearForce said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

I dont think we need to split up the country. We just need to operate more like 50 individual states and take away the power from the federal govt. The federal bureaucracy has gotten way out of hand and is not what the founders intended.

---

Depends on which founders you are speaking of. The folks who were Federalist, such as Hamilton and Adams, probably wouldn't agree with your statement.

---

Luckily we had the anti-Federalists who got us the Bill of Rights.

---

True

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Should it happen? Arent both sides completely sick of each other? We are closer to civil war than we are getting along with each other. Splitting up into red & blue is so much netter than war.

Would you be fore or against?

I vote yes, separate. The alternatives are ugly. And this way everyone gets what they want.

---

I vote no

---

What are your reasons ?

Really believe this country have avoid a cultural blood bath down the road ?

---

The calls for a war or a division of states comes from a loud but very, very small group with a social media megaphone. Call 10 of your acquaintances today and ask them if the country should separate into 2 of more countries. I have and nobody I know even understands the question.
The USA has always had regions that were different economically and socially. A few examples come to mind.
Before the Civil War the NE was the population and financial center of the country. The regions were very different
After the Civil War the South was in a Depression for decades. The NE prospered. The regions were very different.
Now the population is moving south and southwest. The NE is socially very different from the south and SW. I won't be telling NYC residents how to live. I think their choices are destructive in the long run, but c'est la vie.

My long term view of the country is pessimistic. I think the country is in irreversible decline because of financial and societal decisions. I just don't believe we divide up before we augur in. See what happens when the grid goes down or the financial system crashes.

---

These questions have been polled from time to time and the numbers, depending on the way the question is worded range between 20-40%.

---

I'm not saying my friends & acquaintances are a representative sample of the US population.

Do you have a link to the polls handy. I'm curious how they asked the question

---

I'll have to fire up the laptop to get some links. At one point in the Obama years, Texas secession got to 39% in one poll. My assessment at the time was that ANY 2-digit number was a signal of struggling social contract.

Usually, the question is asked in context of how likely the respondent thought civil war would occur. I don't recall a number below 20%. Again, any 2-digit number is significant = "what the hell is going on here?"

I know I have a link to Kessler's "Cold Civil War" article. It is one of several of the type which echoes themes I've posted here. Liberals have left Classical Liberalism and allied with Progressives, who control most of the culture producing institutions, which puts both in a feedback loop which tells progressives they've won the argument and makes liberals mis-perceive that they are near the political center. And other pathologies flow from there. Capital is always the glue. It will play to the last card to avoid the fight.

At the moment, capital thinks it can pander to progressives on culture and does not yet perceive the threat that conservatives and working class see right up in their grille. But drag shows at school are galvanizing things quickly. Almost every capitalist is a parent or grandparent.

There is very, very little common ground between right and left at the moment. Regime politics. One side tries to undo the work of the other, work originally done in no small part to limit the other.

There will be no compromise. One side will win, and the other will lose. Outcome uncertain but I like our chances. It would be game over if the neverTrumpers would quit virtue posturing

---

I used to think your domestic policy was almost as nihilistic as your foreign policy, but I was wrong. It's worse!

---

We are not in Kansas anymore. Have you heard that the RPT Convention this month passed a resolution urging the Texas Legislature to put secession on the ballot? That it barely made the news is itself worthy of some analysis. The RPT Convention is not a small thing, not a bunch of nuts in a back room. It's the largest political convention in the world, over 9000 delegates.

Here's one on national division from almost a year ago.
https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/arts-culture/563221-shocking-poll-finds-many-americans-now-want-to/

To be clear: the odds of actual secession/division happening are vanishingly small. but when you see polling results like link, you know there are serious social pathologies going on, two in particular. One, a growing number of people are just tired of all the division - "geez, just let them have their room and tell me where mine is." Two, a growing number of people do not see a practical way to bridge the divisions - "Not no, but hell no. Who do these people think they are?" And is that latter that drives my assessment about the shrinking political middle - the right has gone as far as they're willing to go, and the left has become increasingly shrill, punishing not just dissent but lack of enthusiasm. That drives the wide range of polls over the last few years showing that people are increasingly refusing to socialize or date across the political aisle.

The dynamic that typically binds in times like this is pretty simple: lower and middle classes have more latitude to be principled in their political choices. They have little or nothing to lose. It's the upper classes who have enough wealth to temper their political sensibilities. Yeah, a wealthy person might think X, but instability rarely improves wealth (unless you're the one driving the instability). So it's capital considerations which typically provide the most resilient centripetal force. The other big centripetal forces are social institutions, and most of those have already failed, or are in process of doing so. They no longer beckon to commonality, but are driving social justice (which a growing majority of the public are rising to reject.) That's why we see the issue of division/secession popping up in polling from time to time. The centre has not held. A new one is going to have to form. And the Trump coalition (with or without him) is the leading contender - multi-racial working class. That's a big tent which can incorporate a lot of diversity of all types. The social justice coalition is too upper-class white, too intellectual, and most importantly is actively disinterested in reaching out to incorporate by anything other than force. You either join them or you are canceled. They are bullies. And ordinary people hate bullies. Ergo the enduring strength of the Trump coalition.

We should be able to get thru it. And progressives are probably going to lose. But it is going to be a very bumpy ride. And in such exercises, there's always a chance.....

Think the social justice movement is "winning the argument?"

https://www.faithwire.com/2021/03/01/most-americans-believe-cancel-culture-threatens-freedom-poll/

Harvard/Harris poll. Hardly the work of right win nutjobs....

Thoughtful essay on social institutions.

https://lawliberty.org/how-institutions-crumble/

Author does not state the central irony - social institutions are supposed to hold us together by being inclusive. But those institutions are increasingly embracing social justice, which is highly intolerant of unbelievers.

Critical Theories, you see, cannot themselves be criticized.
That's how you know what it really is.
The average Joe & Jane might not be able to parse the post-modernism, but they know they smell a rat.

So is the "division" question really so odd in context?

People will flee tyranny if given the chance. Always.

https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/poll-62-americans-say-they-have-political-views-theyre-afraid-share#liberals-are-divided-political-expression

So when we see substantial flows of people moving from blue states to red states not just for jobs, but to escape the political environment of the blue state.......it's ratifying what the polls are hinting to us.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Should it happen? Arent both sides completely sick of each other? We are closer to civil war than we are getting along with each other. Splitting up into red & blue is so much netter than war.

Would you be fore or against?

I vote yes, separate. The alternatives are ugly. And this way everyone gets what they want.

---

I vote no

---

What are your reasons ?

Really believe this country have avoid a cultural blood bath down the road ?

---

The calls for a war or a division of states comes from a loud but very, very small group with a social media megaphone. Call 10 of your acquaintances today and ask them if the country should separate into 2 of more countries. I have and nobody I know even understands the question.
The USA has always had regions that were different economically and socially. A few examples come to mind.
Before the Civil War the NE was the population and financial center of the country. The regions were very different
After the Civil War the South was in a Depression for decades. The NE prospered. The regions were very different.
Now the population is moving south and southwest. The NE is socially very different from the south and SW. I won't be telling NYC residents how to live. I think their choices are destructive in the long run, but c'est la vie.

My long term view of the country is pessimistic. I think the country is in irreversible decline because of financial and societal decisions. I just don't believe we divide up before we augur in. See what happens when the grid goes down or the financial system crashes.

---

These questions have been polled from time to time and the numbers, depending on the way the question is worded range between 20-40%.

---

I'm not saying my friends & acquaintances are a representative sample of the US population.

Do you have a link to the polls handy. I'm curious how they asked the question

---

I'll have to fire up the laptop to get some links. At one point in the Obama years, Texas secession got to 39% in one poll. My assessment at the time was that ANY 2-digit number was a signal of struggling social contract.

Usually, the question is asked in context of how likely the respondent thought civil war would occur. I don't recall a number below 20%. Again, any 2-digit number is significant = "what the hell is going on here?"

I know I have a link to Kessler's "Cold Civil War" article. It is one of several of the type which echoes themes I've posted here. Liberals have left Classical Liberalism and allied with Progressives, who control most of the culture producing institutions, which puts both in a feedback loop which tells progressives they've won the argument and makes liberals mis-perceive that they are near the political center. And other pathologies flow from there. Capital is always the glue. It will play to the last card to avoid the fight.

At the moment, capital thinks it can pander to progressives on culture and does not yet perceive the threat that conservatives and working class see right up in their grille. But drag shows at school are galvanizing things quickly. Almost every capitalist is a parent or grandparent.

There is very, very little common ground between right and left at the moment. Regime politics. One side tries to undo the work of the other, work originally done in no small part to limit the other.

There will be no compromise. One side will win, and the other will lose. Outcome uncertain but I like our chances. It would be game over if the neverTrumpers would quit virtue posturing

---

I used to think your domestic policy was almost as nihilistic as your foreign policy, but I was wrong. It's worse!

---

We are not in Kansas anymore. Have you heard that the RPT Convention this month passed a resolution urging the Texas Legislature to put secession on the ballot? That it barely made the news is itself worthy of some analysis. The RPT Convention is not a small thing, not a bunch of nuts in a back room. It's the largest political convention in the world, over 9000 delegates.

Here's one on national division from almost a year ago.
https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/arts-culture/563221-shocking-poll-finds-many-americans-now-want-to/

To be clear: the odds of actual secession/division happening are vanishingly small. but when you see polling results like link, you know there are serious social pathologies going on, two in particular. One, a growing number of people are just tired of all the division - "geez, just let them have their room and tell me where mine is." Two, a growing number of people do not see a practical way to bridge the divisions - "Not no, but hell no. Who do these people think they are?" And is that latter that drives my assessment about the shrinking political middle - the right has gone as far as they're willing to go, and the left has become increasingly shrill, punishing not just dissent but lack of enthusiasm. That drives the wide range of polls over the last few years showing that people are increasingly refusing to socialize or date across the political aisle.

The dynamic that typically binds in times like this is pretty simple: lower and middle classes have more latitude to be principled in their political choices. They have little or nothing to lose. It's the upper classes who have enough wealth to temper their political sensibilities. Yeah, a wealthy person might think X, but instability rarely improves wealth (unless you're the one driving the instability). So it's capital considerations which typically provide the most resilient centripetal force. The other big centripetal forces are social institutions, and most of those have already failed, or are in process of doing so. They no longer beckon to commonality, but are driving social justice (which a growing majority of the public are rising to reject.) That's why we see the issue of division/secession popping up in polling from time to time. The centre has not held. A new one is going to have to form. And the Trump coalition (with or without him) is the leading contender - multi-racial working class. That's a big tent which can incorporate a lot of diversity of all types. The social justice coalition is too upper-class white, too intellectual, and most importantly is actively disinterested in reaching out to incorporate by anything other than force. You either join them or you are canceled. They are bullies. And ordinary people hate bullies. Ergo the enduring strength of the Trump coalition.

We should be able to get thru it. And progressives are probably going to lose. But it is going to be a very bumpy ride. And in such exercises, there's always a chance.....

---

I don't disagree with much of what you're saying. I'm just surprised, if you understand how devastating civil war can be, that you wouldn't want to avoid it at almost any cost. Nor am I convinced that you have the upper hand over progressives. There seems to be much evidence to the contrary.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Totally unrealistic. There's no geographic boundary between red and blue, no line upon which to split.

---

I propose the 'arby's heuristic'.

- KKM

{ sipping coffee }

{ eating toast }

we are not irrevocably broken, the Constitution is still worth fighting for. Still the best country on earth.

This would also make Putin happy.

F Putin

Never. Short. America. https://t.co/1mB7bnsj3Z

— HUNTSMAN 🇺🇸 (@man_integrated) April 11, 2022

I'll never get to see it but I hope they split it East/West instead of North South.

I know it makes everyone feel good to think that we can recover but DC is so corrupt and lost that we will never be able to fix our problems.

Thee University said:

---

I'll never get to see it but I hope they split it East/West instead of North South.

I know it makes everyone feel good to think that we can recover but DC is so corrupt and lost that we will never be able to fix our problems.

---

The only viable scenario is East/West/Middle