• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    357 months ago

    Marjorie Taylor Dumbfuck here doesn’t realize that her state, and in fact all Republican-led states, are solely dependent on blue state generosity in order to continue to exist. I’m sure the blue states would absolutely love for these freeloading welfare states to leave the union, because it would offer an immediate federal surplus that could be better allocated on themselves. It will never happen, because the smart conservatives love having a never-ending money faucet they can gargle when their economic plans fail due to their own ineptitude.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      57 months ago

      Poetic, and agreed on all points. I stress because if these fucking morons are dumb enough to try, I have to predict it so I can get the fuck out before everything collapses.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    477 months ago

    I mean… as long as California takes Colorado and New Mexico with it, I see no real issues with that. We get the economy, the nature, and the nukes.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        47 months ago

        Something that I learned recently makes this flag make absolutely no sense.

        The bear on the flag of The Republic of California, is extinct, and has been since the 1920s. Therefore in the Fallout universe, that bear is also extinct. None of them could have mutated into the two headed version. Where the heck did this flag come from?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          4
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          They still would have had the original California flag; the NCR flag would have been based on it, probably to deliberately harken back to the time before the restructuring of the country into the 13 Commonwealths divided the state in two

      • LousyCornMuffins
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        187 months ago

        We’ll bring along Oregon and Washington, at least the west halves, and call the country the Collective of American States.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      27 months ago

      Aren’t the nukes in Montana and the dakotas? Though I’m under the impression we also keep some silos in the rural northeast.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          47 months ago

          Did not expect the distribution to be like that, especially with blue states having nearly as many as red and swing states combined. For anyone curious: Blue state nukes-4324 Red state nukes-2266 Swing state nukes-2454

          Washington really surprised me but it makes a lot of sense actually. I knew there were none at Wright patt because you learn that growing up in Dayton, they can’t risk the aliens.

          And yeah I knew albequerque is one of the most critical cities for our ability to project nuclear force and that we make and test them in New Mexico and that Colorado is home to norad command. I just had also thought there were some hidden in Appalachia in upstate New York or something or one of the other eastern mountain ranges

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    87 months ago

    Fucking do it already, I’m tired of the roller coaster. Let them have their MAGA utopia of Dumbfuckistan and leave the rest of us be to maybe finally start fixing things that have been broken for half a century.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        67 months ago

        I wouldnt say that. Left and right leaning people are mixed all over the country. It’s not like the civil war when people were geographically located where the states wanted to cecede.

        Point is, my comment was a joke. If the U.S. fractures into a bunch of smaller countries, its not going to be a good time for anybody.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    437 months ago

    How is it not illegal for her to say these things? Like is that a threat against the United States?

    • NeilBrü
      link
      fedilink
      23
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Depends.

      Protected by the first amendment, one can legally advocate for the dissolution of the Union through bicameral ratification outlined constitutionally by constitutional amendment. To advocate for armed insurrection or violent overthrow of the federal government is sedition and considered quite illegal.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        157 months ago

        Is it really illegal if the law isn’t enforced? Is anything a Republican does illegal anymore?

        • NeilBrü
          link
          fedilink
          16
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          I’ve always loved this quote about conservatism:

          Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition: there must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

          • Frank Wilhoit
        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          37 months ago

          These people are very much against a lot of things on the constitution…and the bible…and fake-champion both…ugh

        • NeilBrü
          link
          fedilink
          2
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          You’re correct. I was wrong. The Constitution would have to be amended to allow for it first.

          The United States Constitution does not explicitly provide a method for the dissolution of the union. In fact, the Constitution is quite silent on the topic of secession or dissolution.

          However, there are a few relevant provisions and historical precedents that are often cited in discussions about the possibility of dissolution:

          Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1: This clause, also known as the “Guarantee Clause,” states that the United States shall guarantee to every state a republican form of government. Some argue that this clause implies a constitutional obligation for the federal government to maintain the union and prevent secession.

          The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2): This clause establishes the Constitution and federal laws as the supreme law of the land, which some interpret as precluding the possibility of secession.

          The Civil War and the 14th Amendment: The American Civil War (1861-1865) was fought, in part, over the issue of secession. The 14th Amendment (1868) was ratified in the aftermath of the war and includes language that could be seen as prohibiting secession. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that no person who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States shall be eligible to hold federal or state office.

          Texas v. White (1869): In this landmark Supreme Court case, the Court ruled that secession is not permissible under the Constitution. The decision stated that the Constitution looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states.

          While these provisions and precedents suggest that the Constitution does not provide a clear method for dissolution, they do not necessarily rule out the possibility of secession or dissolution entirely. Some argue that secession could be achieved through a constitutional amendment or a negotiated agreement between the federal government and a state or group of states.

          It’s worth noting that, in practice, the possibility of dissolution is often seen as a highly unlikely and potentially destabilizing event. The United States has a long history of federalism and a strong tradition of national unity, which has generally been maintained through a system of shared power and compromise between the federal government and the states.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      307 months ago

      A known traitor threat against the United States was allowed to run for and be elected president. This country doesn’t have laws except for the poor and it certainly doesn’t have a functioning system of justice or even government at this point.

  • Phoenixz
    link
    fedilink
    297 months ago

    Yeah, divorce yourself from all those states that send you money because you’re too backward to care for yourself. Sounds like a great idea!

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    34
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Oh look, a broken clock.

    How many times do we need to keep this nation “united” at gunpoint before we acknowledge that the science and reason people are incompatible with the supply side Jesus and racial hatred people? We can’t stand one another, and time only deepens that division until bloodshed, over and over.

    You can’t educate those cultures that refuse to be educated or have their children educated. That kind of change, born of desperation and constant struggle inflicted from your own culture’s values needs to come from within. The Red States need their Martin Luther “maybe we shouldn’t punch ourselves in the face every day” reformation moment, and it isn’t rational for those that see beyond their ignorance and superstition be dragged down with them for generations until they get there. Blue states propping them up only prolong comfort in their ignorance.

    You can’t force cultural evolution or save the willfully ignorant from their own willlfull ignorance from outside on Alabama any more than you can on Afghanistan, all you do is create a common enemy for them, as we continue to experience.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      37 months ago

      I have held this stance for many years (am not American though), and everytime I proposed it someone from the US told me “Nooo we’ve had that in the past and we fought a civil war in order to stay together!!! We can’t split!” and I think it’s like a broken marriage that was never easy to begin with that’s just being held together because the parties are too stubborn to say “ok well let’s split up”. It’s an unhealthy relationship.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    397 months ago

    So they know that Texas doesn’t have a GDP high enough to even run all their red catastrophies, right? I’m kidding, I know they don’t know. They probably also don’t know that CA would be the third largest super power if they ever let us go. Which they won’t. At all.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      77 months ago

      I don’t know, they are certainly close to dumb enough to sign off on it. Or, you know, we can just do it and ignore the rules since they are all so fond of that now.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      127 months ago

      California should secede and kick off the great (terrible) balkanization of the formerly united states

      NCR & The North East republic

      Vs

      Yeehawistan

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        47 months ago

        Unfortunately that would cause a Pakistan-Bangladesh situation with a country connected by airlines. Except worse because Illinois, Minnesota, Colorado, and New Mexico would be enclaves in trumpistan

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    437 months ago

    About the only thing that would make me happier than to have the entire pacific west coast secede and create a sovereign nation would be for Trump to do it for us so we don’t have to fight a war over it. You want us gone? Please, show us the exit, we’ll be on our way. No takebacksies.

  • Dharma Curious (he/him)
    link
    fedilink
    317 months ago

    Honestly, with what I’m genuinely concerned is going to happen, that would probably be preferable. Give everyone some notice, and we can escape the nutjobs by being homeless in California and New York instead of concentrated in camps in Florida and Georgia. I mean, it’ll inevitably make the blue state nation more conservative as they blame southern refugees for all their problems, but it’d still be better more than likely