Sooooo.... Texas?

[#UnleashSean]

A post on Texas abortion has turned into the war in Afghanistan.  Strange scoop, strange.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

This vague thread is a now a political quagmire covering abortion, COVID, Afghanistan, and religion.  Can’t wait to see how much farther we go before a justified lock

This is true. But is started out with a lot of promise.

[muwarrior69]

You make it sound like leaving a war zone, especially when the provisional government high tails it out of the country and their army just disappears, is like moving next door.  It was no where near the disaster it has been portrayed.


False.  Abortion rates have been falling for years.  And it is not due to restrictions.

https://www.statista.com/chart/19490/us-abortion-rate-guttmacher-institute/


Ah, someone doesn't want to get their falsehoods challenged I see.

They would fall even more if every woman could view the sonogram guided procedures of their own abortions as the fetus hopelessly struggles for its life.

[Jockey]

They would fall even more if every woman could view the sonogram guided procedures of their own abortions as the fetus hopelessly struggles for its life.

At least there are old, mediocre white men demanding the right to tell women what to do with their bodies.

There would actually be fewer abortions if you demanded the right to tell men what to do with their bodies and support a ban on Viagra.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

They would fall even more if every woman could view the sonogram guided procedures of their own abortions as the fetus hopelessly struggles for its life.

Yeah they are too dumb and emotional to make decisions otherwise.

[mu_hilltopper]

I believe there is a zero percent chance the 50 US states will be one country in 100 years.   Frankly, zero chance in 50 years too.   50/50 chance in 25 years .. and I'd put it at 25% chance in 5 years.

How in 5 years?  In 2016, Trump won and there was a movement called Calexit that spelled out a path to California seceding, with a "Proposition" on the ballot to change their constitution, if passed then a vote to secede.  It lost energy.

Say in 2024, Trump runs and wins, the GOP wins the house and Senate -- very plausible.  Liberals across the country are enraged and Calexit starts with complete intensity -- again, very plausible.    In 2017, polling had Calexit at 32% .. I could easily see it passing in ~2025 if the GOP was in control again.

Next is federal ratification.  Surely that wouldn't happen, right?   But Trump is in office and he's no Abe Lincoln.  The GOP sees this as a golden opportunity to wipe away CA's 55 electoral votes and win permanent control of the Presidency.   Trump says: California, you're fired, I'm rid of Nancy Pelosi forever.

No one fires a shot.  Lawyers work out the details.  Oregon and Washington are on the clock.

We thought people using horse dewormer to fight a pandemic was far fetched 5 years ago.  The above scenario .. is more likely.

[Jockey]

Yeah they are too dumb and emotional to make decisions otherwise.

Isn't that the gist of what men have said throughout the history of mankind?

[Johnny B]

I believe there is a zero percent chance the 50 US states will be one country in 100 years.   Frankly, zero chance in 50 years too.   50/50 chance in 25 years .. and I'd put it at 25% chance in 5 years.

How in 5 years?  In 2016, Trump won and there was a movement called Calexit that spelled out a path to California seceding, with a "Proposition" on the ballot to change their constitution, if passed then a vote to secede.  It lost energy.

Say in 2024, Trump runs and wins, the GOP wins the house and Senate -- very plausible.  Liberals across the country are enraged and Calexit starts with complete intensity -- again, very plausible.    In 2017, polling had Calexit at 32% .. I could easily see it passing in ~2025 if the GOP was in control again.

Next is federal ratification.  Surely that wouldn't happen, right?   But Trump is in office and he's no Abe Lincoln.  The GOP sees this as a golden opportunity to wipe away CA's 55 electoral votes and win permanent control of the Presidency.   Trump says: California, you're fired, I'm rid of Nancy Pelosi forever.

No one fires a shot.  Lawyers work out the details.  Oregon and Washington are on the clock.

We thought people using horse dewormer to fight a pandemic was far fetched 5 years ago.  The above scenario .. is more likely.

5 years wth? wats gonna happen. seems so unrealistic to me. 50 plus years sure idk. texas is gonna become a country so it can have a thoecracy. other bible.belt states? go ahead. how do u even do it

[Galway Eagle]

It really comes down to who pulls the trigger first. Let's say Topper's scenario did happen, Oregon and Washington (at least the eastern portions) are going to jump to try to leave with California. The red states will gladly get rid of that swaying the elections. However, if Texas leaves first, I could see some of the red states trying to jump on board with that ship. Question is would Texas try to get rid of the purple or blue areas or not.

[Jockey]

Ain't happenin' guys.

I expect to see Rs make one more final attempt at a coup. It will fail and the middle and soft right will reject them completely. Even their attempts to rig elections won't be enough to save them.

[Pakuni]

I believe there is a zero percent chance the 50 US states will be one country in 100 years.   Frankly, zero chance in 50 years too.   50/50 chance in 25 years .. and I'd put it at 25% chance in 5 years.

How in 5 years?  In 2016, Trump won and there was a movement called Calexit that spelled out a path to California seceding, with a "Proposition" on the ballot to change their constitution, if passed then a vote to secede.  It lost energy.

Say in 2024, Trump runs and wins, the GOP wins the house and Senate -- very plausible.  Liberals across the country are enraged and Calexit starts with complete intensity -- again, very plausible.    In 2017, polling had Calexit at 32% .. I could easily see it passing in ~2025 if the GOP was in control again.

Next is federal ratification.  Surely that wouldn't happen, right?   But Trump is in office and he's no Abe Lincoln.  The GOP sees this as a golden opportunity to wipe away CA's 55 electoral votes and win permanent control of the Presidency.   Trump says: California, you're fired, I'm rid of Nancy Pelosi forever.

No one fires a shot.  Lawyers work out the details.  Oregon and Washington are on the clock.

We thought people using horse dewormer to fight a pandemic was far fetched 5 years ago.  The above scenario .. is more likely.

I'm going to save this post for the 2026, 2046 and 2071 versions of Old Takes Exposed.
The odds of Donald Trump presiding over the exit of California in five years is about 1,000 times smaller than the odds of Donald Trump being dead in five years.


We can argue about whether think a Calexit vote magically would flip from 2-to-1 against to 2-to-1 in favor, or why Republicans would want to bid adieu to the country's largest producer of food, its technology hub and a tax donor state.
A key fact all of this speculation forgets is that there is no legal or Constitutional mechanism for what you propose here. So, fun conjecture, but it's not possible under U.S. law.

[Galway Eagle]

I'm going to save this post for the 2026, 2046 and 2071 versions of Old Takes Exposed.
The odds of Donald Trump presiding over the exit of California in five years is about 1,000 times smaller than the odds of Donald Trump being dead in five years.


We can argue about whether think a Calexit vote magically would flip from 2-to-1 against to 2-to-1 in favor, or why Republicans would want to bid adieu to the country's largest producer of food, its technology hub and a tax donor state.
A key fact all of this speculation forgets is that there is no legal or Constitutional mechanism for what you propose here. So, fun conjecture, but it's not possible under U.S. law.

Crops: California doesn't do crops efficiently especially with the water issues and then R's could proclaim they brought back farming infrastructure to middle America.

Tech hub, maybe to get it out of an area where they feel youre indoctrinated?
Always remember a few years ago the Scottish referendum was at 34% now if Boris Johnson allows another Scotland's likely leaving the UK. If that can happen I wouldn't be surprised of any state leaving here.

[Pakuni]

Crops: California doesn't do crops efficiently especially with the water issues and then R's could proclaim they brought back farming infrastructure to middle America.

OK. Good luck growing mass quantities of grapes, almonds, strawberries and lettuce in the Midwest.

Always remember a few years ago the Scottish referendum was at 34% now if Boris Johnson allows another Scotland's likely leaving the UK. If that can happen I wouldn't be surprised of any state leaving here.

Latest polls show otherwise. FWIW.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/elections-2021/scottish-independence

But again, the UK has a legal mechanism for that to happen. The U.S. does not.

[naginiF]

Ain't happenin' guys.

I expect to see Rs make one more final attempt at a coup. It will fail and the middle and soft right will reject them completely. Even their attempts to rig elections won't be enough to save them.

This is the most likely scenario.

1/6/21 combined with the ongoing Q/extreme entrenchment of ~50% of the GOP (or ~20% of voters) and complacency of any potential leadership, guarantees that if voting restrictions don't do the trick another coup attempt is absolutely on their docket. And, as you said, there are enough R's that are rational about social issues and intelligent enough to know what democracy actually is (as well as other forms of government) to reject the movement.

[mu_hilltopper]

We can argue about whether think a Calexit vote magically would flip from 2-to-1 against to 2-to-1 in favor,

Not sure why you picked 2 to 1.  It'd only need 50% to pass a referendum in CA, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

.. ​or why Republicans would want to bid adieu to the country's largest producer of food, its technology hub and a tax donor state.
A key fact all of this speculation forgets is that there is no legal or Constitutional mechanism for what you propose here. So, fun conjecture, but it's not possible under U.S. law.

You are so cute thinking the GOP rationally thinks about things like tech and food production.  Or that laws matter to them when they get in the way of their desires.

They are primarily interested in having and holding power.  This would do that.  The end.  It would get done.

[Jockey]

Not sure why you picked 2 to 1.  It'd only need 50% to pass a referendum in CA, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

You are so cute thinking the GOP rationally thinks about things like tech and food production.  Or that laws matter to them when they get in the way of their desires.

They are primarily interested in having and holding power.  This would do that.  The end.  It would get done.

They've taken the big step to threaten businesses that will not do their bidding for them. If they loose the Chamber of Commerce, they are toast.

[Jockey]

Not sure why you picked 2 to 1.  It'd only need 50% to pass a referendum in CA, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

The campaign for Cali to secede was stated by 2 Trumpers. It will go nowhere.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1869 that no state can secede from the Union. To do so would require a Constitutional amendment which means it would have to be approved by 2/3 in the House and Senate, then be ratified by 38 states.

[naginiF]

.....thinking the GOP rationally thinks about things like tech and food production.  Or that laws matter to them when they get in the way of their desires.

They are primarily interested in having and holding power.  ......

Regardless of where one falls on the hypothetical civil war argument nobody can argue that this isn't accurate.

[Lennys Tap]

They are primarily interested in having and holding power.  This would do that.  The end.  It would get done.

As opposed to the Democrats, who are primarily interested in having and holding power.

[jficke13]

As opposed to the Democrats, who are primarily interested in having and holding power.

I think the distinction is GOP = having, holding, *and wielding* power. Dems = having and holding power.

The GOP for many decades has viewed and organized their political operation with cold, Machiavellian, game theory. The same cannot be said of the Democrats. Twice in the last 3 presidents, they have controlled both houses of Congress and the White House and with that they've gotten basically nothing done. The opposite is true of the GOP.

[Lennys Tap]

I think the distinction is GOP = having, holding, *and wielding* power. Dems = having and holding power.

The GOP for many decades has viewed and organized their political operation with cold, Machiavellian, game theory. The same cannot be said of the Democrats. Twice in the last 3 presidents, they have controlled both houses of Congress and the White House and with that they've gotten basically nothing done. The opposite is true of the GOP.

In a two party system both parties seek to have, hold and wield power. The Dems used to be great at all 3. The Rs never had an LBJ, Tip O’Neill, Dan Rostenkowski, etc. They kept the fringe in line. Not so much today.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

As opposed to the Democrats, who are primarily interested in having and holding power.

But don’t kill their followers to do so.

Saying “they do it too” is the height of ignorance. Which is of course why you would make that argument.

[jficke13]

In a two party system both parties seek to have, hold and wield power. The Dems used to be great at all 3. The Rs never had an LBJ, Tip O’Neill, Dan Rostenkowski, etc. They kept the fringe in line. Not so much today.

Okay, iterating toward the most precise end point:

Dems seek to have, hold, and wield power but are comically inept at accomplishing any wielding of power when they stumble into having it.

GOP seeks to have, hold, and wield power, but since they have embraced the platonic form of machiavellian power expression, they manage to wield power even when they neither have nor hold it.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Okay, iterating toward the most precise end point:

Dems seek to have, hold, and wield power but are comically inept at accomplishing any wielding of power when they stumble into having it.

GOP seeks to have, hold, and wield power, but since they have embraced the platonic form of machiavellian power expression, they manage to wield power even when they neither have nor hold it.

Yep. Republicans seek to undermine the very Constitution they pretend to care about, and brain dead followers like Lenny’s lap it up.

[Lighthouse 84]

But don’t kill their followers to do so.

What are you talking about?  The Clintons have killed plenty of their followers, who crossed them, to stay in power.