Is Secession a Realistic Option? (1 Viewer)

[Mr. Blue Sky]

I’m looking for serious responses, hopefully.. I think there is a good chance that Trump loses the election- but, as posters have pointed out in other threads- as i type this , we have an American president who is actively trying to suppress voters and rig the election, AND has stated on multiple occasions that if he loses, then by definition that means that the election was fixed... SO, with all that in mind- in the event of a Trump ‘victory’- what is to stop , say, California , Oregon and Washington pulling away from the US (CA has the world’s sixth-largest economy, As we all know).. Same with the New England states .. One initial problem i see is that, all 50 states have both Trump voters, as well as Non-Trump voters within their borders.. So unfortunately, anyone who ISNT willing to live under a strong armed dictator will have to move to the East or West Coast (if they want to, of course).. I have talked to conservatives in the past who have told me that they ‘wish California would just fall into the ocean’ (not even paraphrasing)- so presumably the New Trump America wouldnt mind seeing us all go.. Why would they even bother to start a Civil War, since they have such animosity towards the coasts (and non-Trump voters) anyway... It sucks, but it’s where we are.. Is this realistic, why or why not?

 

[Saintman2884]

I talk politics with a select group of people. My neighbors are not in that group of people. I don't go looking for any verbal confrontations nor am I encouraging anyone to do so. If someone in my presence decides to say something that I know to be false, I don't sit by and let it go because to me, letting it go is tacit approval or agreement with what is being said. Instead, after they voice their opinion, I make verifiable statements to the contrary of what they just said and I let them know that they what they are saying is false and that they should educate themselves to stop the spread of misinformation.

The short answer to probably the longest question I've ever been asked is "no". I live in a very trmplican state (there is nothing conservative about current day trumplicans and republicans who are true to their core beliefs and values are an endangered species). I have neighbors and people I consider friends who are trump supporters. On the occassion that we engage in anything remotely political in nature, I will not sit by and accept what they are saying for the sake of getting along.

I have a coworker that I've worked with for 12 years who is a staunch trumplican and former military. We go out of our way to help each other out because that's the type of relationship we've built over the years. She has a way of making political comments that usually parrot the latest conspiracy theory or other provably false beliefs coming from trumplicans. When she does, I simply comment to her that she is mistaken or what she is saying has already been proven false. I don't make her life a living hell nor am I nasty or disrespectful to her because it's not necessary to do that to get my point(s) across to her.

My question to you is this. What would make you feel that the only way to correct someone who is repeating provable lies is to make their life a living hell, trying to start nasty, verbal arguments about how hypocritical, extreme and morally vacous their tin god is and by extension, looking to start confrontations that end in fights or violence and a sense of distrust and hatred that every freaking time both we leave our homes to do ANYTHING or go ANYWHERE, they'll consider secretly carrying firearms to protect themselves or their families?

Do you see it as impossible to speak up when faced with provable falsehoods without the outrageous description you layed out? Are you not capable of having a civil disagreement with someone you completely disagree with? Because I am. And the scenario you laid out, I seriously doubt anything like that is playing out across the country. Furthermore, it's been my experience that the people who tend to fall into your scenario tend to be the people spreading the lies.

In one of your previous posts, you did make some comments that implied you were willing to get into arguments, conversations, with neighbors or relatives that you disagreed with on Trump or his policies and it came across to me you're were willing to get confrontational, if necessary. It was earlier on in this thread and it wasnt just me who asked when the rubber meets the road, what form will that take? You didnt really clarify that in more detail until Dave pushed you on it and you explained in further, giving a more nuanced, analytical response. I'm sure the problem isn't widespread nationwide, but lets not be naive that in a few neighborhoods there hasn't been high tension and anxiety and even some resentment among a few neighbors that resented the others political views or you had different factions in a few, isolated areas and places up in arms over the past 4 years due to Trump's poisonous administration.



You made it sound like you werent willing to seriously having a conversation with a Trump Republican that you or others like you disagreed with?

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

no. this isn't a both sides thing.

I don't think i'm RIGHT, necessarily. But i KNOW as certainly as I know just about anything that MAGA is dangerously, historically, culturally, politically WRONG
and it doesn't matter if you say "they believe the same thing" because i know I can provide a foundational argument for my positions and I know they can't

Yep, the days of ‘different sides of the same coin’ are long gone.. History will judge one “side” in one manner, and the other side will be on the wrong side of history.. We cant both be ‘sort of’ right, one side is correct, the other side is dead wrong.. and i am not defining the sides as Liberal or Consrvative, Red or Blue- I’m defining the sides as those who love (or even like) Donald J Trump, and those of us who think that he and his ilk are extremely dangerous to America, and to Democracy.

 

[Saintamaniac]

In one of your previous posts, you did make some comments that implied you were willing to get into arguments, conversations, with neighbors or relatives that you disagreed with on Trump or his policies and it came across to me you're were willing to get confrontational, if necessary.

Can you find that post and quote it because I went back in this thread to find a post of mind that fit your description and I did not find anything remotely close to what you said I said? I'd be interested in going back and reading it to see how you might have come to that conclusion.

I'm just having a hard time visualizing exactly what those "good" people are supposed to do.

It was earlier on in this thread and it wasn't just me who asked when the rubber meets the road, what form will that take?

What you are saying DaveXA asked is not what DaveXA asked. You are ascribing things to me that I never said or implied. Where did I infer that I would become confrontational? If you lie to me and I tell you that you are lying, is that confrontational to you?

You asked a long hyperbolic question to which I answered "No". And now you've managed to turn that "no" response into me being willing to get confrontational with neighbors and relatives. Why would you purposely obfuscate my response to fit the narrative you are trying to create?

I think it's every American's duty to speak truth to lies. If you* are going to continue to lie about trump and his non-existent policies, I'm going to continue to accuse you* of lying and I'm going to do it with verifiable facts. I'm not going to just ignore it and keep quiet. If that makes you* angry and confrontational, then that's your* problem.

*you - used in the general sense. Not necessarily referring to the poster I was replying to.

 

[Saintman2884]

Yep, the days of ‘different sides of the same coin’ are long gone.. History will judge one “side” in one manner, and the other side will be on the wrong side of history.. We cant both be ‘sort of’ right, one side is correct, the other side is dead wrong.. and i am not defining the sides as Liberal or Consrvative, Red or Blue- I’m defining the sides as those who love (or even like) Donald J Trump, and those of us who think that he and his ilk are extremely dangerous to America, and to Democracy.

Can you find that post and quote it because I went back in this thread to find a post of mind that fit your description and I did not find anything remotely close to what you said I said? I'd be interested in going back and reading it to see how you might have come to that conclusion.




What you are saying DaveXA asked is not what DaveXA asked. You are ascribing things to me that I never said or implied. Where did I infer that I would become confrontational? If you lie to me and I tell you that you are lying, is that confrontational to you?

You asked a long hyperbolic question to which I answered "No". And now you've managed to turn that "no" response into me being willing to get confrontational with neighbors and relatives. Why would you purposely obfuscate my response to fit the narrative you are trying to create?

I think it's every American's duty to speak truth to lies. If you are going to continue to lie about trump and his non-existent policies, I'm going to continue to accuse you of lying and I'm going to do it with verifiable facts. I'm not going to just ignore it and keep quiet. If that makes you angry and confrontational, then that's your problem.

In your first original reply to me, you said that most MAGA's are extreme hypocrites who refuse to understand or see fact-based political reality and fall for silly, ridiculous unsubstantiated, conspiracy theories. While I sympathize and agree with those who argue against Trump's policies or his supporters, my initial impression of how the wording came across in describing MAGA types and how to confront them was to be aggressive, assertive in challenging Trumpers and maybe I extrapolated it incorrectly, but I thought you disagreed with one of my earliest posts about not chastising neighbors, relatives who disagree with them politically just to keep the peace in a neighborhood.

 

[Saintamaniac]

In your first original reply to me, you said that most MAGA's are extreme hypocrites who refuse to understand or see fact-based political reality and fall for silly, ridiculous unsubstantiated, conspiracy theories.

You are referencing this post below. In your post, you drew an equivolence between the people who have a strong dislike of Trump to the people who support trump. I strongly disagree that those are on equal footing.

Well the majority of the detractors have very good and fact-based reasons behind the passionate hate you describe. Whereas the blind devotioners tend to be extreme hypocrites with selective memory as to allow for their support of someone who goes against every principle they have ever espoused as a political belief.

Many of Trump's detractors, critics hate him with almost an extreme passion as equal to if not surpassing the blind devotion, love, worship his MAGA supporters gave him (and still do) at rallies and fundraisers.

There is a considerable difference between disliking someone who berated gold star families, disrespected soldiers who gave their life for this country and pretty much took a daily shirt on our constitution and people who ignore all that and continue to support trump. The fact of the matter is that the majority of trump supporters HAVE to be hypocrites in order to continue to support him.

my initial impression of how the wording came across in describing MAGA types and how to confront them was to be aggressive, assertive in challenging Trumpers and maybe I extrapolated it incorrectly

The wording you are refering to is "extreme hypocrites with selective memory as to allow for their support of someone who goes against every principle they have ever espoused as a political belief."
What about that sentence led to you attributing " you did make some comments that implied you were willing to get into arguments, conversations, with neighbors or relatives that you disagreed with on Trump or his policies and it came across to me you're were willing to get confrontational, if necessary."?

You made a very incorrect inference from my words quoted above. In no way, fashion or form did my words infer what you tried to attribute to them and I resent your inference. If accurately describing what makes support of trump possible ruffles feathers than maybe one shouldn't continue to support trump.

 

[B4YOU]

I've talked about this before, but I sometimes think the best thing for this country is more federalism. Let the states do more of their own thing. Allow them to form alliances for things like health care policy and environmental regulation. Keep tax dollars local to the states -- to do that we'd need to find some way to even out the federal funding that goes to states through military bases (it won't be practical to move them).

Agree to a point. The problem is historically states’ rights come at the expense of human rights. Since the Civil War we have made a steady march towards a strong federal government including SC.

I don’t know if there is a solution. How does a nation reclaim trust and truth which are fundamental to any society?

A generation was defined by 9/11 and the 20yr wars with heightened security, torture, and black sites to protect against foreign threats. This generation will be defined by Jan 6th and the dishonesty of some Americans. The event mirrors the Beer Hall Putsch. I wonder what would have happened had their leader served the five years sentenced instead of nine months. I wonder what will happen when our own past leaders serve zero prison time.

 

[Saintman2884]

Agree to a point. The problem is historically states’ rights come at the expense of human rights. Since the Civil War we have made a steady march towards a strong federal government including SC.

I don’t know if there is a solution. How does a nation reclaim trust and truth which are fundamental to any society?

A generation was defined by 9/11 and the 20yr wars with heightened security, torture, and black sites to protect against foreign threats. This generation will be defined by Jan 6th and the dishonesty of some Americans. The event mirrors the Beer Hall Putsch. I wonder what would have happened had their leader served the five years sentenced instead of nine months. I wonder what will happen when our own past leaders serve zero prison time.

1920's Germany and the Beer Hall Putsch have to be seen in the specific historical context they came from. Sure, there were many far-right wing German monarchist, proto-fascist societies like the Thule Society or ex-WWI German right-wing militia veterans groups like the Freikorps and the Stuhlhelmuts, that latched on to wild, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories like "stab-in-the-back-legend" that ironically WWI German general and silent autocrat, Erich Ludendorff, devised himself from an offhand comment from a British general shortly after WWI ended. He helped shape post-WWI German public opinion to make it seem like the ruling SPD politicians asked for an armistice and not the high-ranking German Prussian Junkers military leadership he ran. Hitler didnt make his first real, antisemitic speech until after he recovered from partial blindness from a gas attack at a Munich hospital and politically, he didnt make a dent until he was ordered to infiltrate a far right German ultranationalist group called the DAP(German Workers Party) which was run by a middle-aged German locksmith named Anton Drexler, who eventually lost his control over the DAP and his membership. Sure, many ordinary Germans believed the stab-in-the-back legend, but it wouldn't have been such a vicious, nasty blight and likely the Beer Hall Putsch doesn't happen if Germany doesn't get wholly railroaded with the harsh Versailles Treaty and its crippling reparations, which were pushed by a vengeful, vindictive French premier and his group. Hitler used the excesses and punishing terms of Versailles Treaty as a unifying, rallying cry as much as Stab-in-the-back legend, even moderate SPD or communist German KPD as well as all German political parties rejected the Versailles Treaty in one form or another, and even some SPD members believed or gave the impression of believing the false story explaining Germany's WWI military defeat.


Germany had to accept the War Guilt clause, for starting and being the reason behind WWI breaking out(anyone with more then a cursory knowledge of late 19th century European history and the entanglement of dueling alliances knows that is not true, and a gross, over-simplification of pre-WWI European imperial power politics. Most European powers, including the British, probably bear some responsibility for allowing WWI to come about, historians call this theory, "collective guilt, or collective responsibility" thesis. Germany wasnt solely responsible for starting WWI and it was insulting for Versailles negotiatiors to insist on that humiliating clause. Those clauses, plus the crippling reparations, which made Germany wasnt economically dependent on American loans during the 1920's, and if a worldwide depression occurred and those loans, God help the nation's economy and political stability.

Germany had to relinquish its navy, air force and hold only a standing military of around 100,000 men. Germany, a century ago, was a nation where its citizens had a hallowed, almost reverential view of its armed forces, because they'd played such a huge, integral role under Bismarck in the 1860's and 1870's in the unification of Germany, excluding Austria. The Prussian officers corps, and its leaders, the Junker aristocratic military class, were the rock stars of their time and carried huge, enormous prestige and political weight.

Hitler, at his trial, knew most Germans of all political stripes, despised the Versailles Treaty, and its crippling reparations damaged post-war German economy, nearly sent the country into civil war with Communist uprisings in Berlin, Bavaria in 1919, and 1920, and uprisings in 1921 in Thuringia and Saxony. He knew the country forfeited its treaty obligations to repay WWI reparations, so the French sent in its military to forcibly occupy the Ruhr and Saar valleys (Rhineland) Germany's industrial base, until the payments were made and they stayed their for several years, even with German miners, and unions openly defying them and practicing civil disobedience towards them. The nation's currency was essentially worthless during the time of Hitler's own trial for murder and attempted treason, due to rampant hyperinflation, he played the patriotic ex-WWI German soldier who pissed and angry that his adopted country was being badly treated, mocked, abused, and toyed with that they helped put in a weak, incapable democratic regime in the Weimar Republic that lacked legitimacy, and trust among many Germans, not just right-wing conservatives. Hitler played this performance well as his defense because he knew public opinion shared his frustrations, disappointment, and shared sense of resentment, how could any other German criminal court, at that time, not be sympathetic and go easy on him? It wouldve been highly unpopular politically, and in 1924, Weimar Republic was still on shaky, shifting political ground and didnt want to cause more unnecessary trouble. Before Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch, there had been the aborted Kapp Putsch, which had failed due to left-wing labor unions successfully calling for (and executing) a general strike, nationwide.

Hitler, even after the Beer Hall Putsch's failure, was too popular, too influential of a national celebrity, to be sentenced the death penalty, or a long prison sentence wasting away for 20-30 years. Even when Hitler was imprisoned, the Nazi Party was banned for several years even though it persisted on under leadership of Otto Dreisler while Hitler was in prison for 9 months and for the rest of the 1920's, Nazi Party were barely a far-right, regional fringe group that had no representation in major cities like Berlin, where the SPD and KPD(German Communist Party), had much larger followings, were better-organized and less corrupt. Hitler's rise to power included many almost miraculous, unrelated concurrent world events like the Great Depression, rising unemployment, many middle-and-upper class Germans fear of a working-class, Communist revolution backed by the Soviet Union or Comintern secret intelligence agencies. Most Communist parties worldwide up until the early 1960's with the Sino-Soviet split, took orders or were controlled (in some form or another) by Moscow, so many lacked internal political credibility and were seen as outsiders, foreign enablers, or worse traitors.

Honestly, if we're going to openly wonder whats going to happen later on if our political leaders serve no prison time or aren't convicted, well was Nixon ever convicted or serve prison for him certainly authorizing the Watergate break-in(it was a shirtty, awful burglary in of itself), desperately trying more elaborate and more illegal ways to cover it up, firing his own independent prosecutor because his investigation was getting way close to him.
By all accounts, Nixon should've been prosecuted instead of being pardoned by his VP Ford, instead he never spent a day in jail or paid a huge, enormous fine.

 

[DaveXA]

1920's Germany and the Beer Hall Putsch have to be seen in the specific historical context they came from. Sure, there were many far-right wing German monarchist, proto-fascist societies like the Thule Society or ex-WWI German right-wing militia veterans groups like the Freikorps and the Stuhlhelmuts, that latched on to wild, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories like "stab-in-the-back-legend" that ironically WWI German general and silent autocrat, Erich Ludendorff, devised himself from an offhand comment from a British general shortly after WWI ended. He helped shape post-WWI German public opinion to make it seem like the ruling SPD politicians asked for an armistice and not the high-ranking German Prussian Junkers military leadership he ran. Hitler didnt make his first real, antisemitic speech until after he recovered from partial blindness from a gas attack at a Munich hospital and politically, he didnt make a dent until he was ordered to infiltrate a far right German ultranationalist group called the DAP(German Workers Party) which was run by a middle-aged German locksmith named Anton Drexler, who eventually lost his control over the DAP and his membership. Sure, many ordinary Germans believed the stab-in-the-back legend, but it wouldn't have been such a vicious, nasty blight and likely the Beer Hall Putsch doesn't happen if Germany doesn't get wholly railroaded with the harsh Versailles Treaty and its crippling reparations, which were pushed by a vengeful, vindictive French premier and his group. Hitler used the excesses and punishing terms of Versailles Treaty as a unifying, rallying cry as much as Stab-in-the-back legend, even moderate SPD or communist German KPD as well as all German political parties rejected the Versailles Treaty in one form or another, and even some SPD members believed or gave the impression of believing the false story explaining Germany's WWI military defeat.


Germany had to accept the War Guilt clause, for starting and being the reason behind WWI breaking out(anyone with more then a cursory knowledge of late 19th century European history and the entanglement of dueling alliances knows that is not true, and a gross, over-simplification of pre-WWI European imperial power politics. Most European powers, including the British, probably bear some responsibility for allowing WWI to come about, historians call this theory, "collective guilt, or collective responsibility" thesis. Germany wasnt solely responsible for starting WWI and it was insulting for Versailles negotiatiors to insist on that humiliating clause. Those clauses, plus the crippling reparations, which made Germany wasnt economically dependent on American loans during the 1920's, and if a worldwide depression occurred and those loans, God help the nation's economy and political stability.

Germany had to relinquish its navy, air force and hold only a standing military of around 100,000 men. Germany, a century ago, was a nation where its citizens had a hallowed, almost reverential view of its armed forces, because they'd played such a huge, integral role under Bismarck in the 1860's and 1870's in the unification of Germany, excluding Austria. The Prussian officers corps, and its leaders, the Junker aristocratic military class, were the rock stars of their time and carried huge, enormous prestige and political weight.

Hitler, at his trial, knew most Germans of all political stripes, despised the Versailles Treaty, and its crippling reparations damaged post-war German economy, nearly sent the country into civil war with Communist uprisings in Berlin, Bavaria in 1919, and 1920, and uprisings in 1921 in Thuringia and Saxony. He knew the country forfeited its treaty obligations to repay WWI reparations, so the French sent in its military to forcibly occupy the Ruhr and Saar valleys (Rhineland) Germany's industrial base, until the payments were made and they stayed their for several years, even with German miners, and unions openly defying them and practicing civil disobedience towards them. The nation's currency was essentially worthless during the time of Hitler's own trial for murder and attempted treason, due to rampant hyperinflation, he played the patriotic ex-WWI German soldier who pissed and angry that his adopted country was being badly treated, mocked, abused, and toyed with that they helped put in a weak, incapable democratic regime in the Weimar Republic that lacked legitimacy, and trust among many Germans, not just right-wing conservatives. Hitler played this performance well as his defense because he knew public opinion shared his frustrations, disappointment, and shared sense of resentment, how could any other German criminal court, at that time, not be sympathetic and go easy on him? It wouldve been highly unpopular politically, and in 1924, Weimar Republic was still on shaky, shifting political ground and didnt want to cause more unnecessary trouble. Before Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch, there had been the aborted Kapp Putsch, which had failed due to left-wing labor unions successfully calling for (and executing) a general strike, nationwide.

Hitler, even after the Beer Hall Putsch's failure, was too popular, too influential of a national celebrity, to be sentenced the death penalty, or a long prison sentence wasting away for 20-30 years. Even when Hitler was imprisoned, the Nazi Party was banned for several years even though it persisted on under leadership of Otto Dreisler while Hitler was in prison for 9 months and for the rest of the 1920's, Nazi Party were barely a far-right, regional fringe group that had no representation in major cities like Berlin, where the SPD and KPD(German Communist Party), had much larger followings, were better-organized and less corrupt. Hitler's rise to power included many almost miraculous, unrelated concurrent world events like the Great Depression, rising unemployment, many middle-and-upper class Germans fear of a working-class, Communist revolution backed by the Soviet Union or Comintern secret intelligence agencies. Most Communist parties worldwide up until the early 1960's with the Sino-Soviet split, took orders or were controlled (in some form or another) by Moscow, so many lacked internal political credibility and were seen as outsiders, foreign enablers, or worse traitors.

Honestly, if we're going to openly wonder whats going to happen later on if our political leaders serve no prison time or aren't convicted, well was Nixon ever convicted or serve prison for him certainly authorizing the Watergate break-in(it was a shirtty, awful burglary in of itself), desperately trying more elaborate and more illegal ways to cover it up, firing his own independent prosecutor because his investigation was getting way close to him.
By all accounts, Nixon should've been prosecuted instead of being pardoned by his VP Ford, instead he never spent a day in jail or paid a huge, enormous fine.

Actually, a good number of our former Presidents have committed crimes in office over the years with little to no consequences. No accountability at the top ultimately led us to the Trump administration. Had we held our previous leaders accountable for all of their actions, Trump probably wouldn't have lasted 6 months in office imo.

 

[B4YOU]

Actually, a good number of our former Presidents have committed crimes in office over the years with little to no consequences. No accountability at the top ultimately led us to the Trump administration. Had we held our previous leaders accountable for all of their actions, Trump probably wouldn't have lasted 6 months in office imo.

Agree. Nixon is godfather of modern Republicanism. However, Ford’s partisan pardon might be the moment when accountability ended.

 

[Taurus]

If it avoids a nasty, potentially heated conversation about moral/ethical superiority between two or more people living in same neighborhood, working in the same office building, might've been close friends in HS or College or generally speaking got along with long before Trump decided to enter U.S. politics and poison it, then yes, its more then a small comfort lying about it or consciously making sins of omission just to avoid violent, nasty rhetorical arguments?

Many of Trump's detractors, critics hate him with almost an extreme passion as equal to if not surpassing the blind devotion, love, worship his MAGA supporters gave him (and still do) at rallies and fundraisers. Some of these same MAGA supporters who are little more observant and don't fit the one-dimensional idiotic, completely deluded from reality, science-denying cult of personality shtick the MSM has put out (with some truth) know they work in offices, at least before COVID-19, or live in same neighborhoods with people who are fundamentally at odds with their political beliefs. So, instead of inviting constant feuds or bickering or possible pettiness seep in, for some of them it does make a lot more sense to keep some of their views to themselves. I know of people who live here in Mobile in midtown that despise Trump but they also know Mobile, overall, and Alabama,.as a state, doesn't share their political convictions as a whole and many of their neighbors, even in the more liberal Midtown region, are Republican voters or are MAGA's. I mean, is Donald Trump worth ruining the peaceful tranquility, personal happiness of a neighborhood because you don't like some of their convictions, as idiotic as they may be? I don't want to live in some echo chamber type city or areas of a city where all I hear are views comparable or similar to mine or where I'm not challenged in a meaningful, positive way.



Some people might see it as lying, others might interpret it as compartmentalizing, attempting to live, work and manage their daily lives without extreme drama or histrionics.

So, just walk small and give in to the toddlers?

 

[zztop]

so I read about a strange thing that just took place. Some counties in Oregon voted to break away and join Idaho

'Greater Idaho' took one step closer to being a real thing as 5 more counties voted to explore leaving liberal Oregon for conservative Idaho

The Greater Idaho movement proposes a new border in which more than 70% of Oregon's land would be incorporated into Idaho.

www.businessinsider.com

Seven rural Oregon counties have already voted in favor of an effort aimed at leaving Oregon and becoming part of Idaho and organizers of the Greater Idaho movement say more counties will soon have the option on the ballot.

"We want out from underneath Oregon's governance and go underneath Idaho's governance, which we tend to match up better with, as far as our values go," the group's president, Mike McCarter, told Insider.

 

[Lapaz]

Make an exchange program.

MS, AL, SC, and GA (since they want it so bad) are the new MAGASA. MAGA stuck in a blue state? Swap housing with someone in the new MSA!
Conservative but not quite MAGA? No problem! Come see our border territories in LA, FL, TN, NC and AR!
Act now, spots are filing fast!

If this happened, then I’d be trapped in MAGA country! Unfortunately, every part of the country has MAGA people. Alabama is thick with them, but you can’t abandon the rest of us!

 

[Saintman2884]

If this happened, then I’d be trapped in MAGA country! Unfortunately, every part of the country has MAGA people. Alabama is thick with them, but you can’t abandon the rest of us!

There are some pockets of Alabama that are conservative red, but not MAGA-delusional completely devoid from current political reality types, yet. Birmingham and Huntsville are probably the closest areas, or cities, where you might see some blue spots pop again, and while Birmingham has the largest population of any city in Alabama, and Ill probably be living there in a few years, in terms of long-term economic sustainability, Huntsville is way ahead of them in terms of potential and what there capable of. Mobile, where I live, is all about who you know and how well and deep those connections are in terms of jobs, opportunities, and infrastructural development. Mobile has experienced a population decline since the 1990's due to better jobs, better housing, better schools, higher-paying jobs based around merit, not which part of the established "Old Mobile" backward-looking white-collar aristocracy which has dominated here politically and economically since the late 19th century. A lot of younger Mobilians left for Baldwin County, or bigger cities with better long-term job possibilities then what Mobile has to offer and I'm often reminded by city and civic leaders making statements or policies inferring they have no idea how to stop it or their even aware of how serious it is.

 

[CoolBrees]

Another reason people might be leaving state of Alabama is, well….It’s Alabama.

Regarding the Eastern Oregon secession and annexation into Idaho-

The silence from this side of the mountain is deafening. They are a massive suckhole for services and basically drag the state down. Seriously let’s get this done.

I don’t blame them I guess. They read the writing on the wall. We just got another electoral vote and one more seat in Congress. Take a guess where the population growth was.

Oh and they are nuts. like take over a mothballed wildlife refuge level crazy.

I really believe the Oregon legislation would let them leave - we have a supermajority in both houses that grew last election. Too bad there is no way Idaho would take them. And then I believe it would have to go to a federal vote. In other words, ain’t happening.

 

[B4YOU]

Another reason people might be leaving state of Alabama is, well….It’s Alabama.

Regarding the Eastern Oregon secession and annexation into Idaho-

The silence from this side of the mountain is deafening. They are a massive suckhole for services and basically drag the state down. Seriously let’s get this done.

I don’t blame them I guess. They read the writing on the wall. We just got another electoral vote and one more seat in Congress. Take a guess where the population growth was.

Oh and they are nuts. like take over a mothballed wildlife refuge level crazy.

I really believe the Oregon legislation would let them leave - we have a supermajority in both houses that grew last election. Too bad there is no way Idaho would take them. And then I believe it would have to go to a federal vote. In other words, ain’t happening.

I’ll gladly trade eastern Oregon to Idaho if they take WY too.

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

I dont know how long i can continue to share my country with these lunatics.. MAGA adherents , and their 70-something year old leader- are a bunch of spoiled children.



.

 

[DaveXA]

I dont know how long i can continue to share my country with these lunatics.. MAGA adherents , and their 70-something year old leader- are a bunch of spoiled children.



.

Hardly surprising considering who that 70 something is. Predictable even.

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Hardly surprising considering who that 70 something is. Predictable even.

I mean, we all know that ‘reassuming the Presidency’ isnt the way any of this works.. So i wont let my blood pressure get too high.. and in fairness to CNN, i have seen this same story reported in multiple other outlets.. still, it’s a hell of a thing to wake up to.