|
Randar
Model Employee



Registered: 01/18/23
Posts: 192
Loc: Chicago, IL
Last seen: 23 days, 9 hours
|
National "Divorce" or Secession of "Red" states from "Blue"
#28199115 - 02/22/23 12:13 PM (1 year, 2 months ago) |
|
|
This comes up every so often, right wing politicians / pundits / individuals will suggest splitting up the nation along red/blue state borders. Recently, our favorite right-wing nut, MTG, called for it.
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/gop-governor-marjorie-taylor-greenes-separation-talk-evil-rcna71554
Now this never makes sense to me. First, I don't hate conservatives. I think a healthy nation needs a diverse view. What really doesn't make sense to me is the financial aspect of this idea. It's well-known that metropolitan areas (mainly "blue") essentially pay for the rest of the country. You can look at this from the city/rural divide, but it's even evident on a more macro red/blue state divide. That is, more often than not, blue-cities/states receive less in federal taxes than they put into it.
So what you have is red-areas (it bugs me to use this red/blue terminology since it's really not the case, the US is more purple than anything) wanting to secede. So you'd have a group of conservative states, which typically want lower taxes, with no way to pay for anything. Essentially creating a third-world country where they'd have to choose between drastically raising taxes in order to pay for even the most rudimentary services, or they'd death-spiral into extreme poverty. Without being subsidized by the blue-areas, the red-areas can't survive.
|
ReynardTheFox
Stranger



Registered: 01/25/17
Posts: 204
Last seen: 1 month, 12 days
|
Re: National "Divorce" or Secession of "Red" states from "Blue" [Re: Randar]
#28199207 - 02/22/23 01:25 PM (1 year, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I'm not even from fhe U.S. but I think splitting the country in two would be really bad for dealing with China. There really is greater strength in unity.
|
Randar
Model Employee



Registered: 01/18/23
Posts: 192
Loc: Chicago, IL
Last seen: 23 days, 9 hours
|
Re: National "Divorce" or Secession of "Red" states from "Blue" [Re: ReynardTheFox]
#28199214 - 02/22/23 01:30 PM (1 year, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ReynardTheFox said: I'm not even from fhe U.S. but I think splitting the country in two would be really bad for dealing with China. There really is greater strength in unity.
It's not realistic, and won't happen. But yes, it would be terrible for the world as a whole as it would fracture US military strength and influence throughout the world.
That's in addition to the above economic reasoning (and that's just internal economics, not even venturing into what it would do on a global economic scale).
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 34,046
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 2 hours, 4 minutes
|
Re: National "Divorce" or Secession of "Red" states from "Blue" [Re: Randar] 1
#28199260 - 02/22/23 02:11 PM (1 year, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Never gonna happen, this is just MTG playing to her base.
Regardless of whether she realizes it or not, there will never be a “national divorce” because it doesn’t make sense for the rulers of this country.
--------------------
|
starfire_xes
I Am 'They'



Registered: 10/24/09
Posts: 21,590
Loc: Dallas with all the assho...
Last seen: 10 months, 19 days
|
Re: National "Divorce" or Secession of "Red" states from "Blue" [Re: Randar]
#28200309 - 02/23/23 08:20 AM (1 year, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Randar said: This comes up every so often, right wing politicians / pundits / individuals will suggest splitting up the nation along red/blue state borders. Recently, our favorite right-wing nut, MTG, called for it.
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/gop-governor-marjorie-taylor-greenes-separation-talk-evil-rcna71554
Now this never makes sense to me. First, I don't hate conservatives. I think a healthy nation needs a diverse view. What really doesn't make sense to me is the financial aspect of this idea. It's well-known that metropolitan areas (mainly "blue") essentially pay for the rest of the country. You can look at this from the city/rural divide, but it's even evident on a more macro red/blue state divide. That is, more often than not, blue-cities/states receive less in federal taxes than they put into it.
So what you have is red-areas (it bugs me to use this red/blue terminology since it's really not the case, the US is more purple than anything) wanting to secede. So you'd have a group of conservative states, which typically want lower taxes, with no way to pay for anything. Essentially creating a third-world country where they'd have to choose between drastically raising taxes in order to pay for even the most rudimentary services, or they'd death-spiral into extreme poverty. Without being subsidized by the blue-areas, the red-areas can't survive.
CRETIN!
|
Randar
Model Employee



Registered: 01/18/23
Posts: 192
Loc: Chicago, IL
Last seen: 23 days, 9 hours
|
Re: National "Divorce" or Secession of "Red" states from "Blue" [Re: starfire_xes]
#28200506 - 02/23/23 10:51 AM (1 year, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
starfire_xes said:
Quote:
Randar said: This comes up every so often, right wing politicians / pundits / individuals will suggest splitting up the nation along red/blue state borders. Recently, our favorite right-wing nut, MTG, called for it.
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/gop-governor-marjorie-taylor-greenes-separation-talk-evil-rcna71554
Now this never makes sense to me. First, I don't hate conservatives. I think a healthy nation needs a diverse view. What really doesn't make sense to me is the financial aspect of this idea. It's well-known that metropolitan areas (mainly "blue") essentially pay for the rest of the country. You can look at this from the city/rural divide, but it's even evident on a more macro red/blue state divide. That is, more often than not, blue-cities/states receive less in federal taxes than they put into it.
So what you have is red-areas (it bugs me to use this red/blue terminology since it's really not the case, the US is more purple than anything) wanting to secede. So you'd have a group of conservative states, which typically want lower taxes, with no way to pay for anything. Essentially creating a third-world country where they'd have to choose between drastically raising taxes in order to pay for even the most rudimentary services, or they'd death-spiral into extreme poverty. Without being subsidized by the blue-areas, the red-areas can't survive.
CRETIN!
You, sir, are a master at presenting your view points. You've convinced me. Well done.
Edited by Randar (02/23/23 10:54 AM)
|
Brian Jones
Club 27



Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,455
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 7 hours, 34 minutes
|
Re: National "Divorce" or Secession of "Red" states from "Blue" [Re: The Ecstatic]
#28200507 - 02/23/23 10:54 AM (1 year, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The Ecstatic said: Never gonna happen, this is just MTG playing to her base.
Regardless of whether she realizes it or not, there will never be a “national divorce” because it doesn’t make sense for the rulers of this country.
All true. It also doesn't make sense for the red states to bankrupt themselves from blue state federal funding over culture issues.
-------------------- "The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body" John Lennon I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either. The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,
|
chopstick
nobody



Registered: 07/26/08
Posts: 5,252
Loc: Chin's Wok
|
Re: National "Divorce" or Secession of "Red" states from "Blue" [Re: Brian Jones]
#28200632 - 02/23/23 12:29 PM (1 year, 2 months ago) |
|
|
OP misses the point. It doesn't matter what MTG said. What matters is that this sentiment exists and it's becoming increasingly popular amongst the portion of the population that does not agree with the direction the country is headed. That *portion* being more than 80 million people.
The direction our country is headed is being entirely controlled by a very vile political force known as the Neocons and whom have in recent years expanded their ideology to the liberal side resulting in demonic offspring known as the Neoliberals. Together they are doing everything in their power to destroy both the USA and the planet. Both political parties are (mostly) under the full control of these individuals.
If you don't know what a Neocon is, then you don't have a clue what is taking place in this country and it's virtually pointless to listen to you or to anyone else whom does not address this problem. Because their rise to power is the most significant and important development in the USA in the past few decades, as it effects all of our lives in various ways.
The Neocons, prior to the 90's were referred to as the "crazies in the basement" by past administrations. In-fact, they were so insane that nobody really listened to them and they were not able to fully wield their influence. Unfortunately, things started changing in the early 90's and Neocon influence began to grow dramatically, and in the wake of 9/11, they solidified full control over the levers of power in this country, and have maintained an iron grip on it ever since.
The Neocons have been directly behind every major war & regime change operation going back for the last roughly 25 years. They were the architects of the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, the ones who decided to bomb Libya, the ones who decided to support terrorists in Syria, and they are the ones who decided to use Ukraine as a catalyst to trigger war with Russia. They are the ones whom have decided to use sanctions as a tool to enforce global control, causing millions of deaths over the past 20+ years via a combination of starvation, lack of medicine and lack of energy/fuel in sanctioned countries.
To say they have "blood on their hands" would be an understatement. They are a threat not only to our nation but to the entire human race. Their actions have directly resulted in the destabilization of the entire planet, the deaths of millions of innocent people, ruining the lives of millions more, and turning tens of millions more into refugees thanks to their wars. And now, the planet is on the edge of WW3 thanks to them. And they don't care in the slightest. They will not stop because they are cold-blooded psychopaths & sociopaths determined to crush all opposition to them globally, even if it triggers a nuclear conflict.
And the sad thing is, if something isn't done to stop them at some point.. then most likely, they will end up triggering a nuclear war at some point in the future because it is not likely that the entire planet will bow in submission to them. Especially not Russia or China, whom they are becoming increasingly aggressive towards. The entire planet is in grave peril thanks to their psychotic narcissism and messianic belief in their absolute supremacy over the entire human race.
The Neocons and all their ilk are the enemies of all of Mankind and at the rate things are going hundreds of millions or billions of people may end up dead because of their ambitions.
In an ideal scenario, the Neocons can be defeated politically via the removal of their pawns & proxies in the US Government. Biden, for example is a full-on puppet who does whatever the Neocons order him to do. That means every single person who voted for Biden voted for a puppet representing the interests not of the people but of some of the most evil, vile criminals that have ever existed. And he is fulfilling his role as puppet to this day. This has to change, and people like him need to be voted out of office.
In the worst case scenario however, if this is not possible then Secession is an entirely viable option. Why the fuck would ANYONE want to be associated with these vile, evil, satanic people and their policies that are clearly anti-human and aimed at destroying humanity? Why?
At this point, the situation is so awful and so desperate that any free-thinking human that cares about the future of the human race absolutely should embrace anything that could reduce the stranglehold on power these Neocons have over our country.
Only a complete fool, a xenophobe whom has consumed too much propaganda would oppose secession to get away from these sick fuckers and their evil policies if that is what it takes in the end.
There is something everyone here should be humble enough to realize. Most of the planetary population hates America, hates America's nonstop warmongering and hates the people taking America in this direction. Our nation has become a threat to them all thanks to the Neocon control over our foreign policy.
Once the Neocons are removed from power this threat would end overnight and it would be a massive boon for everyone. Indeed, the entire world would rejoice.
Now imagine being someone who is against that because they spent too much of their life consuming propaganda on CNN and Reddit and who were sincerely duped into believing that it was the rest of the world and it was the half of the country that doesn't want to be enslaved who were the "enemy" rather than the Neocons whom have been pulling the strings and lying and killing people and plotting against everyone nonstop the entire time.
LOL.
Such people are going to end up looking like the biggest fools who ever lived after this is over.
|
Randar
Model Employee



Registered: 01/18/23
Posts: 192
Loc: Chicago, IL
Last seen: 23 days, 9 hours
|
Re: National "Divorce" or Secession of "Red" states from "Blue" [Re: chopstick] 1
#28200639 - 02/23/23 12:33 PM (1 year, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Oh my.
|
Psilynut2
Stranger

Registered: 04/28/17
Posts: 5,356
Last seen: 48 minutes, 4 seconds
|
Re: National "Divorce" or Secession of "Red" states from "Blue" [Re: chopstick]
#28200701 - 02/23/23 01:18 PM (1 year, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
OP misses the point. It doesn't matter what MTG said. What matters is that this sentiment exists and it's becoming increasingly popular amongst the portion of the population that does not agree with the direction the country is headed.
That sentiment was pretty popular in the 1800s also .
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,848
Last seen: 13 minutes, 25 seconds
|
Re: National "Divorce" or Secession of "Red" states from "Blue" [Re: Psilynut2] 2
#28200870 - 02/23/23 03:50 PM (1 year, 2 months ago) |
|
|
We should split urban/rural. Just build walls around every city. Splitting by state doesn't work because the split is based on urban/rural divides.
Well, actually, based on a paper recently released cited in today's NYT, the actual split is between those that harbor racial resentment and those that do not. It just so happens that those who harbor the most racial resentment tend to be rural welfare queens.
Although, there's also an interesting economic split. The GOP consists of a small, insular group of elites that own most of Wall St, as well as the majority of the white bottom of the barrel, so to speak, the bottom two income quintiles. Democrats increasingly consist of low income minorities and the educated white working class. So both parties have their rich and their poor elements. This is a potential explanation for why we focus on culture wars so much lately: there isn't much the government can do, so the battle rages on. There is no consistent economic or governing agenda to either party.
I dunno what I think yet. It was an interesting article, and I disagree with some of the conclusions drawn, though I haven't dug too deep into the primary sources yet.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/22/opinion/democrats-republicans-education-racial-resentment.html
Quote:
A toxic combination of racial resentment and the sharp regional disparity in economic growth between urban and rural America is driving the class upheaval in American partisanship, with the Republican Party dominant in working-class House districts and the Democratic Party winning a decisive majority of upscale House seats.
Studies from across the left-right spectrum reveal these and other patterns: a nation politically divided by levels of diversity; the emergence of an ideologically consistent liberal Democratic Party matching the consistent conservatism of the Republican Party, for the first time in recent history; and a striking discrepancy in the median household income of white-majority House districts held by Democrats and Republicans.
Four scholars and political analysts have produced these studies: Michael Podhorzer, a former political director of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., in “The Congressional Class Reversal,” “Socioeconomic Polarization” and “Education Polarization”; Oscar Pocasangre and Lee Drutman, of New America, in “Understanding the Partisan Divide: How Demographics and Policy Views Shape Party Coalitions”; and Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist at Emory, in “Both White and Nonwhite Democrats Are Moving Left.”
Podhorzer’s analyses produce provocative conclusions.
“Throughout the first half of the 20th century,” he writes in his class reversal essay, “Democrats were solidly the party of the bottom of the income distribution, and Republicans were solidly the party of the top half of the income distribution.” In 1958, Podhorzer points out, “more than half of the members of the Democratic caucus represented the two least affluent quintiles of districts. Today, that is nearly the case for members of the Republican caucus.”
The result? “In terms of income,” Podhorzer writes. “the respective caucuses have become mirror images of each other and of who they were from Reconstruction into the 1960s.”
The shift is especially glaring when looking at majority-white congressional districts:
From 1994 through 2008, Democrats did about equally well with each income group. But, beginning with the 2010 election, Democrats began doing much better with the top two quintiles and much worse with the bottom two quintiles. In 2020, the gap between the top two and the bottom two quintiles was 50 points. Since 2016, Democrats have been doing worse than average with the middle quintile as well.
The income shift coincided with a deepening of the urban-rural partisan schism.
“As recently as 2008,” Podhorzer writes, “40 percent of the Democratic caucus represented either rural or sparse suburban districts, and about a fifth of the Republican caucus represented majority-minority, urban or dense suburban districts. Now, the caucuses are sorted nearly perfectly.”
As if that were not enough, divergent economic trends are compounding the urban-rural split.
In his socioeconomic polarization essay, Podhorzer shows how median household income in white-majority districts has changed.
From 1996 to 2008, in majority-white districts, there was virtually no difference in household income between districts represented by Republicans and Democrats. Since then, the two have diverged sharply, with median household income rising to $80,725 in 2020 in majority-white districts represented by Democrats, well above the $62,163 in districts represented by Republicans.
Podhorzer ranks congressional districts on five measures:
1) Districts in the lowest or second-lowest quintile (the bottom 40 percent) of both income and education, 2) districts in the lowest or second-lowest quintile of income but in the middle quintile or better for education, 3) districts that are not in the other four measures, 4) districts that are either in the fourth quintile on both dimensions or in the fourth for one and the fifth for the other and 5) districts that are in the fifth quintile for both dimensions.
Using this classification system, how have majority-white districts changed over the past three decades?
“For the entire period from 1996 through 2008,” Podhorzer writes,
none of the white socioeconomic groups was more than 10 points more or less than average, although we can see the highest socioeconomic group trending more Democratic through that period. But everything changed dramatically after 2008, as the two highest socioeconomic groups rapidly became more Democratic while the lowest socioeconomic group became much less Democratic.
In 1996, Democrats represented 30 percent of the majority-white districts in the most educated and most affluent category; by 2020, they represented 86 percent. At the other end, in 1996, Democrats represented 38 and 42 percent of the districts in the bottom two categories; by 2020, those percentages fell to 12 and 18 percent.
In examining these trends, political analysts have cited a growing educational divide, with better-educated — and thus more affluent — white voters moving in a liberal Democratic direction while white voters without college have moved toward the right.
Podhorzer does not dispute the existence of this trend but argues strenuously that limiting the analysis to education levels masks the true driving force: racial tolerance or racial resentment. “This factor, racial resentment,” he writes in the education polarization essay, “does a much, much better job of explaining our current political divisions than education polarization.”
In support of his argument, Podhorzer provides data showing that from 2000 to 2020, the Democratic margin among white people with and without college degrees who score high on racial resentment scales has fallen from minus 26 percent to minus 62 percent for racially resentful non-college white people and from minus 14 percent to minus 53 percent among racially resentful college-educated white people.
At the same time, the Democratic margin rose from plus 12 to 70 percent over those 20 years among non-college white people low in racial resentment and from 50 to 82 percent among college-educated white people low in racial resentment.
In other words, in contradiction to the education divide thesis, non-college white people who are not racially resentful have become more Democratic, while college-educated white people who are racially resentful have become more Republican.
Podhorzer makes the case that “the unequal distribution of recovery after the economy crashed in 2008 has been profoundly overlooked,” interacting with and compounding divisions based on racial attitudes:
Educational attainment was among the important characteristics associated with those increasingly prosperous places. Add to that mix, first, the election of a Black president, which sparked a backlash movement of grievance in those places left behind in the recovery, and, second, the election of a racist president, Donald Trump — who stoked those grievances. We are suffering from a polarization which provides an even more comprehensive explanation than the urban-rural divide.
Changing racial attitudes are also a crucial element in Abramowitz’s analysis, “Both White and Nonwhite Democrats Are Moving Left,” in which he argues that “Democrats are now as ideologically cohesive as Republicans, which is a big change from a decade ago, when Republicans were significantly more cohesive than Democrats.”
In 1972, on a 1 to 7 scale used by American National Election Studies, Abramowitz writes,
supporters of the two parties were separated by an average of one unit. The mean score for Democratic voters was 3.7, just slightly to the left of center, while the mean score for Republican voters was 4.7, to the right. By 2020, the distance between supporters of the two parties had increased to an average of 2.6 units. The mean score for Democratic voters was 2.8 while the mean score for Republican voters was 5.5.
In 2020, Abramowitz observes, the ideological gulf between Democrats and Republicans was the largest “since the ANES started asking the ideological identification question.”
While the movement to the right among Republican voters has been relatively constant over this period, the Democratic shift in an increasingly liberal direction has been more recent and more rapid.
“The divide between supporters of the two parties has increased considerably since 2012, and most of this increase was due to a sharp leftward shift among Democratic voters,” Abramowitz writes. “Between 2012 and 2020, the mean score for Democratic voters went from 3.3 to 2.9 while the mean score for Republican voters went from 5.4 to 5.5.”
By far, the most important shift to the left among Democrats, according to Abramowitz, was on the question “Should federal spending on aid to Blacks be increased, decreased or kept about the same?” From 2012 to 2020, the percentage of Democrats saying “increased” more than doubled, from 31.3 to 72.2 percent. The surge was higher among white Democrats, at 47.5 points (from 24.6 to 72.1 percent), than among nonwhite Democrats, at 31.2 points (from 41.1 to 72.3 percent).
The growing ideological congruence among Democrats has significant consequences for the strength of the party on Election Day. Abramowitz notes that “for many years, white Democrats have lagged behind nonwhite Democrats in loyalty to Democratic presidential candidates. In 2020, however, this gap almost disappeared, with white Democratic identifiers almost as loyal as nonwhite Democratic identifiers.”
The increase in loyalty among white Democratic identifiers, he continues, “is due largely to their increased liberalism because defections” to the right “among white Democrats”
have been heavily concentrated among those with relatively conservative ideological orientations. This increased loyalty has also been apparent in other types of elections, including those for U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. In 2022, according to data from the American National Election Studies Pilot Survey, 96 percent of Democratic identifiers, including leaning independents, voted for Democratic candidates for U.S. House and U.S. Senate.
In their paper “Understanding the Partisan Divide,” Pocasangre and Drutman of New America focus on race and ethnicity from the vantage point of an analysis of voting patterns based on the level of diversity in a district or community.
“Republican districts,” they write,
are some of the least ethnically diverse districts. But voters within these districts have diverse policy views, particularly on economic issues. Democratic districts are some of the most ethnically diverse districts. But voters within these districts are mostly in agreement over their views of both social and economic issues.
Pocasangre and Drutman’s study reinforces the widespread finding “that Republican districts are predominantly white and, for the most part, less affluent than the national average. In contrast, Democratic districts are less white than the average but tend to be more affluent than average.”
Pocasangre and Drutman find that the household income difference between Democratic- and Republican-held seats continues to widen. From 2020 to 2022, the income in Democratic districts rose from $95,000 to $100,000 while in Republican districts it grew from $77,000 to $80,000.
Republican districts, the two authors continue, are “conservative on both social and economic issues, with very few districts below the national average on either dimension.” Democratic districts, in contrast, are
progressive on both policy domains, but have quite a few districts that fall above the average on either the social or economic dimension. In particular, of the 229 Democratic districts in 2020, 14 percent were more conservative than the national average on social issues and 19 percent were more conservative than the national average on economic issues.
On average, competitive districts tilt Republican, according to the authors:
very few competitive districts in 2020 were found on the progressive quadrants of social and economic issues. Instead, of the 27 competitive districts in 2020, 70 percent were more conservative than the national average on economic issues, and 59 percent were more conservative than the national average on social issues.
These battleground districts
lean toward the progressive side when it comes to gun control, but they lean toward the conservative side on all the other social issues. Their views on structural discrimination — an index that captures responses to questions of whether Black people just need to try harder to get ahead and whether discrimination keeps them back — are the most conservative, followed by views toward abortion.
In addition, a majority of competitive districts, 57 percent, are in Republican-leaning rural-suburban communities, along with an additional 13 percent in purely rural areas. Democratic districts, in contrast, are 17 percent in purely urban areas and 52 percent in urban-suburban communities, with 31 percent in rural-suburban or purely rural areas.
I asked Pocasangre about this tilt, and he emailed back:
For now, most swing districts go for Republicans. The challenge for Democrats right now is that most of these swing districts are in suburbs which demographically and ideologically look more like rural areas where Republicans have their strongholds. So, Democrats do face an uphill battle when trying to make inroads in these districts.
But, Pocasangre continued, “majorities in Congress are so slim that control of the House could switch based on idiosyncratic factors, like exceptionally bad candidates on the other side, scandals, changes in turnout, etc. Democrats need to get lucky in the suburbs, but for Republicans, they are theirs to lose.”
Pocasangre and Drutman classified districts as Democratic, Republican or competitive based on the ratings of The Cook Political Report in the 2020 and 2022 elections: “Competitive districts are those classified as tossups for each cycle, while the partisan districts are those rated as solid, likely or lean Democratic or Republican.”
The Cook Report analysis of 2024 House races lists 20 tossup seats, 11 held by Democrats, and nine by Republicans, one of which is held by the serial fabulist George Santos, whose threatened New York seat is classified as “lean Democratic.” Eight of the 11 Democratic tossups are in three states: four in North Carolina and two each in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Four of the nine Republican tossups are in New York, along with two in Arizona.
The changing composition of both Democratic and Republican electorates and the demographics of the districts they represent is one of the reasons that governing has become so difficult. One result of the changing composition of the parties has been a shift in focus to social and cultural issues. These are issues that government is often not well equipped to address but that propel political competition and escalate partisan hostility.
Perhaps most important, however, is that there now is no economic cohesion holding either party together. Instead, both have conflicting wings. For the Republicans, it’s a pro-business elite combined with a working-class, largely white, often racially resentful base; for the Democrats, it’s a party dependent on the support of disproportionately low-income minorities, combined with a largely white, college-educated elite.
One might question why all these cultural and social issues have come so much to the fore and what it might take for the dam to give.
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 107,128
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 1 hour, 14 seconds
|
Re: National "Divorce" or Secession of "Red" states from "Blue" [Re: Kryptos]
#28200907 - 02/23/23 04:11 PM (1 year, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Choppy got some fire crank this week
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
Ice9
3X Ban Lotto Champion



Registered: 03/20/14
Posts: 12,291
Loc: daterapeville,USA
Last seen: 58 minutes, 2 seconds
|
Re: National "Divorce" or Secession of "Red" states from "Blue" [Re: koods]
#28200917 - 02/23/23 04:15 PM (1 year, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Its ok, he has a year to get right before we have to deal with him again
-------------------- The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 107,128
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 1 hour, 14 seconds
|
Re: National "Divorce" or Secession of "Red" states from "Blue" [Re: Ice9]
#28200982 - 02/23/23 04:46 PM (1 year, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Neocons got him
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
|