What Method Should Address the National Divide?; and Do You Identify as "Red" or "Blue" (racism, borders)

[GuitarHero45]

Originally Posted by Ceece

I am getting redder by the day, but that wasn't always the case. I just hate everything "progressives" stand for now. That mythical slippery slope was steep.

I feel the same way. And the crazy thing is that I feel like even sane ones like Tulsi Gabbard can easily become corrupted by the DNC and turned into a Marxist overnight. The whole DNC is trash.

GOP is just a safer option for now.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by 2nd trick op

But I'm curious as to the opinions regarding the means to settle the conflict within the two camps: I think all but the most inflammatory of the "hot-heads" (on both sides) would recognize that we have too much to lose to settle this dispute on the field of battle.

There is no "field of battle" in asymmetrical warfare.

Originally Posted by 2nd trick op

But the question remains as to whether this dispute should be solved by a "friendly divorce" in the manner of the former Czechoslovakia nearly a generation ago, or a "winner take all" plebiscite in which the nation would choose between "red" and "blue" agendae.

Your analogy is a horrific fail.

Might I remind you I own rental property in Kosice.






Wanna guess who the men in red are? If you said Rudolph Schuster (hidden slightly by the child) and Vaclav Havel, you'd be right. The woman in yellow is Susan Caputova (current Slovak President).

I'll let you mull over who the man in blue is.

My, my, I do ever get around. Unlike VISA, I'm everywhere you don't want me to be.

There were no ideological differences between Czechs and Slovaks.

There were, however, cultural differences.

Czechs use the Cyrillic Alphabet; Slovaks use the Western Alphabet.

That's it, aside from regional language variations like in the Midwest we say "pop" and others say "cola" and some say "soda" and some say "soda-pop" when referring to soft drinks.

You seem to be totally oblivious to the fact Czechs lived in Cheha and Slovaks lived in Slovakia.

Originally Posted by 2nd trick op

Accordingly, I've created a "four way" or "2x2" poll:

I've deliberately omitted a neutral option; there is no easy way out here.

Not everyone is red or blue, or even purple for that matter.

Originally Posted by NoHyping

A few things..... how much does anyone think OUTSIDE Powers want this? Like Russia and China also can take and will advantage of inner turmoil?

They will do nothing.

Hint: Neither China nor Russia has the necessary amphibious assault capability.

Originally Posted by NoHyping

- A divided therefore weak US of A and no longer can lead the Free/Socialist World.

Wrong. We don't Liberals to lead the Free World (whatever it might be.)

Originally Posted by NoHyping

- Where does one think their 401k will be and value of the $$$?

Newsflash: Stocks are about the long-term, not the short-term.

Regardless, stocks could crash for any reason or no reason at all leaving people with what they put into their 401(k) plan.

Originally Posted by NoHyping

- How does one think if MILITIA'S in multiple factions come in... think this would ultimately be peaceful?

It could never be peaceful. The US is not now, never has been, and never will be a nation or nation-State.

Contrast that with Cheha, which is a nation-State and Slovakia, which is a nation-State, and the former Czechoslovakia, which was a unitary-State with two nation.

Originally Posted by NoHyping

- Where can one hide and feel safe? A bunker with food for years in Idaho? Or Socialist Canada yet so far removed it does not matter.

Why would you need to hide?

Is there some part of "asymmetrical warfare" that you do not understand?

Originally Posted by NoHyping

Did anyone think how we divvy up our Nuclear Arsenal?

Why would it matter?

Think "Germany" or "Spain" or "Norway." Doesn't matter who ends up with them, the other party(ies) fall under the nuclear umbrella.

Originally Posted by NoHyping

Can we possibly have some peaceful military INTACT?

Why is that even necessary?

But, of course, the military will be intact. Sure, National Guard units and even active military units will defect to the rebel side, but that has no bearing on the security of the successor States.

Originally Posted by NoHyping

Wasn't long ago I saw a B movie on YouTube on a USA split by militias.... all of course armed with peaceful not a term to use..... Just do not remember the name of that movie.

We don't need to know the name, because it is a movie on Useless Tube and not real life.

When it starts, just go sit your mom's basement. You'll be fine.

[sholomar]

Limit the amount of meddling the federal government can have over state's rights and let each state create policy that it's constituents want, and then people who don't like these policies can move.

There are lots of radical lefties in reddit's South Dakota subreddits and my question is if you don't like conservative politics, why are you living in South Dakota? Given the choice I'd rather keep the state conservative over having legal marijuana so I'm not going to vote democrat. It's not going to happen with the party being as "woke" as it has become.

We don't need to break up the country, we simply need to limit the ability of the federal government to meddle in states affairs and pass laws that effect states in a manner that the constitution would not allow. Fairly simple. Radical lefties who are not happy they can't start giving their 12 year olds gender changing hormones can move to a state that allows it. Things like abortion are not even mentioned in the constitution, thus by definition are state's rights issues. The whole concept of the court system was supposed to be to interpret the constitution, not legislate morality... my big beef with courts that rule based on political bias rather than actually interpreting the constitution is they can come up with rulings that affect every state that should really be state's rights issues, left up to each state.

I would argue there are lots of federal agencies such as the ATF, DEA, etc. that meddle where they shouldn't... the whole drug schedule... the idea the federal government says such and such a drug are illegal in every state... that should really be left up to the states also.

Honestly I don't see what people feel so oppressed about.. it mostly operates that way already. There's no need to break up the country.

[GSPNative]

Originally Posted by 2nd trick op

Most of us recognize that the polarization between those of us identifying as "progressives" and those identifying as "conservatives" has intensified in recent years.

But I'm curious as to the opinions regarding the means to settle the conflict within the two camps: I think all but the most inflammatory of the "hot-heads" (on both sides) would recognize that we have too much to lose to settle this dispute on the field of battle.

But the question remains as to whether this dispute should be solved by a "friendly divorce" in the manner of the former Czechoslovakia nearly a generation ago, or a "winner take all" plebiscite in which the nation would choose between "red" and "blue" agendae.

Accordingly, I've created a "four way" or "2x2" poll:

I've deliberately omitted a neutral option; there is no easy way out here.

The former Czechoslovakia isn't the sole guide for how to build fences to make good neighbors.

Canada, Belgium and the former Austria-Hungary are, too.

In each of those countries provinces, language groups or the like all have significantly more authority, at the local level, than US states have.

My solution is to strip the federal government of most of its powers and delegate them to the state level. If all that really matters in politics is at the state level, then purple states might have continuing internal polarization, but blue states and red states would not, and what happened at the federal level wouldn't matter.

I'd also significantly reduce the power of the US president; thus presidential elections wouldn't be life-or-death events to people. Plenty of countries have weaker chief executives than the US has.

[Kibby]

Originally Posted by 2nd trick op

Most of us recognize that the polarization between those of us identifying as "progressives" and those identifying as "conservatives" has intensified in recent years.

But I'm curious as to the opinions regarding the means to settle the conflict within the two camps: I think all but the most inflammatory of the "hot-heads" (on both sides) would recognize that we have too much to lose to settle this dispute on the field of battle.

But the question remains as to whether this dispute should be solved by a "friendly divorce" in the manner of the former Czechoslovakia nearly a generation ago, or a "winner take all" plebiscite in which the nation would choose between "red" and "blue" agendae.

Accordingly, I've created a "four way" or "2x2" poll:

I've deliberately omitted a neutral option; there is no easy way out here.

The Majority must rule of course ….. BUT it is the Majority of each .state in the Federation that should decide.
We either have State’s Rights or we are not a Republic.

[katharsis]

What is interesting is that, so far, people identifying as leaning red is 84% vs. 16% for leaning blue -- that is a much higher percentage identifying as red than in most polls asking people to identify as red/conservative vs. blue/liberal.

I wonder why that is? (Serious question; I have no idea myself.)

[Angry-Koala]

Originally Posted by katharsis

What is interesting is that, so far, people identifying as leaning red is 84% vs. 16% for leaning blue -- that is a much higher percentage identifying as red than in most polls asking people to identify as red/conservative vs. blue/liberal.

I wonder why that is? (Serious question; I have no idea myself.)

I didn't see any good options in the poll so I didn't vote, but the Politics and Other Controversies forum has quite a few more right-leaning posters than left-leaning ones, so that would be one reason.

[Rocko20]

Option 5: Stop assuming 320 million Americans can be classified into only two political categories.

[Wee-Bey]

If covid couldn't bring us back together then nothing can.

That was always the hope. "If there's a national disaster, America will come back together. Deep down we're still all the same people who love our country and will pull together in a crisis."

Nope. That didn't happen. Covid drove us even farther apart. Sad to say but this country is broken.

[Ceece]

Originally Posted by Wee-Bey

If covid couldn't bring us back together then nothing can.

That was always the hope. "If there's a national disaster, America will come back together. Deep down we're still all the same people who love our country and will pull together in a crisis."

Nope. That didn't happen. Covid drove us even farther apart. Sad to say but this country is broken.

The sad part is I think Trump would have been able to unify much more with Covid than the Dems did. He wasn't vilifying or politicizing ANY potential treatments.