- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,050
"National Divorce" - is it time to split up?
- Thread starter Occam's Banana
- Start date
-
- Tags
- secessionism
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,050
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,050
A quarter of Americans open to taking up arms against government, poll says
Survey of 1,000 registered US voters also reveals that most Americans agree government is ‘corrupt and rigged’
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/30/poll-americans-guns-against-government
Victoria Bekiempis (30 June 2022)
More than one quarter of US residents feel so estranged from their government that they feel it might “soon be necessary to take up arms” against it, a poll released on Thursday claimed.
This survey of 1,000 registered US voters, published by the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics (IOP), also revealed that most Americans agree the government is “corrupt and rigged against everyday people like me”.
The data suggests that extreme polarization in US politics – and its impact on Americans’ relationships with each other – remain strong. These statistics come as a congressional committee is holding public hearings on the January 6 insurrection.
This deadly attack on the US Capitol stemmed from the false, partisan, pro-Donald Trump belief that Joe Biden did not win the 2020 election. Rioters attempted to thwart certification of the election, in an effort to keep Trump in office.
Although the violent insurrectionists targeted Republicans and Democrats alike, GOP Trump loyalists have insisted that the committee is illegitimate. These attacks on the committee intensified after Trump staffers themselves – including former attorney general Bill Barr – publicly described his efforts to push “the big lie” that the presidential election was stolen.
The survey indicates that distrust in government varies among party lines. While 56% of participants said they “generally trust elections to be conducted fairly and counted accurately”, Republicans, Democrats and independents were dramatically split on this point. Nearly 80% of Democrats voiced overall trust in elections, but that number dipped to 51% among independents and a mere 33% of Republicans.
Per the poll, 49% of Americans concurred that they “more and more feel like a stranger in my own country”. Again, this number reflected sharp political divisions: the sentiment was held by 69% of self-described “strong Republicans”, 65% of self-described “very conservative” persons, and 38% of “strong Democrats”.
Of the 28% of voters who felt it might soon be necessary “to take up arms against the government”, 37% had guns in their homes, according to the data.
One-third of Republicans – including 45% of “strong Republicans – hold this belief about taking up arms. 35% of independent voters, and 20% of Democrats, also agreed, the poll said.
Meanwhile, those polled voiced negative sentiments about persons from opposing political parties. Seventy-three per cent of self-described Republican voters agreed that “Democrats are generally bullies who want to impose their political beliefs on those who disagree,” and “an almost identical percentage of Democrats (74%) express that view of Republicans”.
“While we’ve documented for years the partisan polarization in the country, these poll results are perhaps the starkest evidence of the deep divisions in partisan attitudes rippling through the country,” said the Republican pollster Neil Newhouse, who conducted the survey in May with and Democratic pollster Joel Benenson.
The survey also stated that almost half of respondents expressed averting political talk with other people “because I don’t know where they stand”. One-quarter described losing friends, and a similar proportion claimed to have avoided relatives and friends, due to politics, per the survey.
Survey of 1,000 registered US voters also reveals that most Americans agree government is ‘corrupt and rigged’
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/30/poll-americans-guns-against-government
Victoria Bekiempis (30 June 2022)
More than one quarter of US residents feel so estranged from their government that they feel it might “soon be necessary to take up arms” against it, a poll released on Thursday claimed.
This survey of 1,000 registered US voters, published by the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics (IOP), also revealed that most Americans agree the government is “corrupt and rigged against everyday people like me”.
The data suggests that extreme polarization in US politics – and its impact on Americans’ relationships with each other – remain strong. These statistics come as a congressional committee is holding public hearings on the January 6 insurrection.
This deadly attack on the US Capitol stemmed from the false, partisan, pro-Donald Trump belief that Joe Biden did not win the 2020 election. Rioters attempted to thwart certification of the election, in an effort to keep Trump in office.
Although the violent insurrectionists targeted Republicans and Democrats alike, GOP Trump loyalists have insisted that the committee is illegitimate. These attacks on the committee intensified after Trump staffers themselves – including former attorney general Bill Barr – publicly described his efforts to push “the big lie” that the presidential election was stolen.
The survey indicates that distrust in government varies among party lines. While 56% of participants said they “generally trust elections to be conducted fairly and counted accurately”, Republicans, Democrats and independents were dramatically split on this point. Nearly 80% of Democrats voiced overall trust in elections, but that number dipped to 51% among independents and a mere 33% of Republicans.
Per the poll, 49% of Americans concurred that they “more and more feel like a stranger in my own country”. Again, this number reflected sharp political divisions: the sentiment was held by 69% of self-described “strong Republicans”, 65% of self-described “very conservative” persons, and 38% of “strong Democrats”.
Of the 28% of voters who felt it might soon be necessary “to take up arms against the government”, 37% had guns in their homes, according to the data.
One-third of Republicans – including 45% of “strong Republicans – hold this belief about taking up arms. 35% of independent voters, and 20% of Democrats, also agreed, the poll said.
Meanwhile, those polled voiced negative sentiments about persons from opposing political parties. Seventy-three per cent of self-described Republican voters agreed that “Democrats are generally bullies who want to impose their political beliefs on those who disagree,” and “an almost identical percentage of Democrats (74%) express that view of Republicans”.
“While we’ve documented for years the partisan polarization in the country, these poll results are perhaps the starkest evidence of the deep divisions in partisan attitudes rippling through the country,” said the Republican pollster Neil Newhouse, who conducted the survey in May with and Democratic pollster Joel Benenson.
The survey also stated that almost half of respondents expressed averting political talk with other people “because I don’t know where they stand”. One-quarter described losing friends, and a similar proportion claimed to have avoided relatives and friends, due to politics, per the survey.
Anti Globalist
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2017
- Messages
- 49,039
Funny how both sides want to secede yet both sides are scared to pull the trigger first.
Jenard Butler
Member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2018
- Messages
- 288
I’m sure Uncle Sugar’s internal numbers show this as well, hence the uptick in mass ‘shootings’.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,050
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,050
https://twitter.com/michaelmalice/status/1548703599810715649
NEW POLL: More Trump Voters in Red States Say Secession Would Make Things Better
https://www.mediaite.com/news/new-p...tates-say-secession-would-make-things-better/
Tommy Christopher (16 July 2022)
More Trump voters living in Republican-controlled states said secession would make things better in their states than those who said it would not, according to a new poll.
Respondents to a new Yahoo! News/YouGov [URL=""https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/pst9hlpdz5/20220708_yahoo_tabs.pdf]poll[/URL] were asked “Do you think your state would be better off or worse off if it left the United States and became an independent country?”
Among all respondents, more than twice as many said they’d be “worse off” (43%) as those who said things would be “better off” (18%), while 15% said things would be about the same and another 24% responded they were “not sure.”
But Yahoo News West Coast Correspondent Andrew Romano broke down the responses to a more granular level, and found people in red states who voted for former President Donald Trump were much more amenable to seceding:
Red-state Donald Trump voters are now more likely to say they’d be personally “better off” (33%) than “worse off” (29%) if their state seceded from the U.S. and “became an independent country,” according to a new Yahoo News/YouGov poll.
It’s a striking rejection of national unity that dramatizes the growing culture war between Democratic- and Republican-controlled states on core issues such as guns, abortion and democracy itself. And an even larger share of red-state Trump voters say their state as a whole would be better off (35%) rather than worse off (30%) if it left the U.S.
The survey of 1,672 U.S. adults, which was conducted from July 8 to 11, comes as a series of hard-line conservative decisions by the Supreme Court — coupled with continued gridlock on Capitol Hill — have shifted America’s center of political gravity back to the states, where the parties in power are increasingly filling the federal void with far-reaching reforms of their own.
Given the attention surrounding the blockbuster January 6 hearings into the Trump-fueled attack on the Capitol, the numbers could have been worse.
NEW POLL: More Trump Voters in Red States Say Secession Would Make Things Better
https://www.mediaite.com/news/new-p...tates-say-secession-would-make-things-better/
Tommy Christopher (16 July 2022)
More Trump voters living in Republican-controlled states said secession would make things better in their states than those who said it would not, according to a new poll.
Respondents to a new Yahoo! News/YouGov [URL=""https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/pst9hlpdz5/20220708_yahoo_tabs.pdf]poll[/URL] were asked “Do you think your state would be better off or worse off if it left the United States and became an independent country?”
Among all respondents, more than twice as many said they’d be “worse off” (43%) as those who said things would be “better off” (18%), while 15% said things would be about the same and another 24% responded they were “not sure.”
But Yahoo News West Coast Correspondent Andrew Romano broke down the responses to a more granular level, and found people in red states who voted for former President Donald Trump were much more amenable to seceding:
Red-state Donald Trump voters are now more likely to say they’d be personally “better off” (33%) than “worse off” (29%) if their state seceded from the U.S. and “became an independent country,” according to a new Yahoo News/YouGov poll.
It’s a striking rejection of national unity that dramatizes the growing culture war between Democratic- and Republican-controlled states on core issues such as guns, abortion and democracy itself. And an even larger share of red-state Trump voters say their state as a whole would be better off (35%) rather than worse off (30%) if it left the U.S.
The survey of 1,672 U.S. adults, which was conducted from July 8 to 11, comes as a series of hard-line conservative decisions by the Supreme Court — coupled with continued gridlock on Capitol Hill — have shifted America’s center of political gravity back to the states, where the parties in power are increasingly filling the federal void with far-reaching reforms of their own.
Given the attention surrounding the blockbuster January 6 hearings into the Trump-fueled attack on the Capitol, the numbers could have been worse.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,050
The Economics of National Divorce
Lots of Americans now openly discuss the idea of National Divorce, focusing on the political, cultural, and social divisions in America. But what about the economics? How would issues like debt, entitlements, and defense be addressed if the US split into two or more new political entities?
Mises.org senior editor and economist Ryan McMaken joins Jeff Deist to discuss.
Listen to Hoppe on centralization and secession: https://mises.org/library/political-economy-centralization-and-secession
https://odysee.com/@mises:1/the-economics-of-national-divorce:5
Lots of Americans now openly discuss the idea of National Divorce, focusing on the political, cultural, and social divisions in America. But what about the economics? How would issues like debt, entitlements, and defense be addressed if the US split into two or more new political entities?
Mises.org senior editor and economist Ryan McMaken joins Jeff Deist to discuss.
Listen to Hoppe on centralization and secession: https://mises.org/library/political-economy-centralization-and-secession
| 00:00 | Introduction |
| 02:16 | Research on National Breakups |
| 04:16 | Are Bigger Nations Better? |
| 07:20 | Decentralization and Secession |
| 10:25 | What Happens to the National Debt? |
| 14:34 | The 1995 Quebec Referendum |
| 27:19 | Entitlements Under a Breakup |
| 34:48 | Breaking up the Cultural and Economic Divide |
| 41:51 | Will China Take Over the World if the USA Splits? |
| 46:13 | Global Trade with Divorced States |
Anti Globalist
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2017
- Messages
- 49,039
Time to stop messing around and secede already.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,050
Regarding the same poll:
Nearly one in three Americans say it may soon be necessary to take up arms against the government
https://thehill.com/homenews/357227...ssary-to-take-up-arms-against-the-government/
Brad Dress (24 July 2022)
A majority of Americans say the U.S. government is corrupt and almost a third say it may soon be necessary to take up arms against it, according to a new poll from the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics.
Two-thirds of Republicans and independents say the government is “corrupt and rigged against everyday people like me,” according to the poll, compared to 51 percent of liberal voters.
Twenty-eight percent of all voters, including 37 percent of gun owners, agreed “it may be necessary at some point soon for citizens to take up arms against the government,” a view held by around 35 percent of Republicans and around 35 percent of Independents. One in five Democrats concurred.
The findings come after a House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, riots at the U.S. Capitol wrapped up its final hearing for the summer, seeking to place former President Trump at the heart of efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
The panel also said Trump readily accepted and even encouraged the attack from his supporters, watching violence play out on television for nearly three hours before finally making a statement telling them to go home.
Despite the hearings, Trump still enjoys broad support among Republicans, who are more concerned about inflation, education and crime than they are about Jan. 6.
About 56 percent of Americans say elections are fair and accurate, but that number falls to 33 percent among Republicans, according to the Chicago University poll.
The division between conservatives and liberals across the country is only growing, the poll shows, and a quarter of Americans say they have lost friends over politics.
More than 70 percent of Republicans and more than 70 percent of Democrats both agree the other side “are generally bullies who want to impose their political beliefs on those who disagree.”
And half of all Americans believe the other side is misinformed about politics because of where they get their information and news, the poll found.
The University of Chicago-Public Opinion Strategies-Benenson Strategy Group poll was conducted May 19 to May 23 among 1,000 registered voters. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.53 percentage points.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,050
A National Divorce?
Dave Smith and Reason's Zach Weissmueller discuss the libertarian case for and against breaking up the United States.
https://rumble.com/v1dlc3s-a-national-divorce.html
Should Libertarians Root for a National Divorce?
Dave Smith discusses the libertarian case for and against breaking up the United States.
https://reason.com/video/2022/07/25/should-libertarians-root-for-a-national-divorce/
Zach Weissmueller (25 July 2022)
Is it time for blue states and red states to stop fighting over their differences and just get a divorce?
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R–Ga.), along with many on the political right, says it's time to seriously consider breaking the country apart.
The Libertarian Party (L.P.) has also been promoting this idea on Twitter since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
"Pro-lifers, why share a country with those who support the dismemberment of babies in the womb?," the L.P. tweeted in June. "Pro-choicers, why share a country with those who would take a woman's right to abort away? #NationalDivorce."
The politics of abortion are thorny and contentious even among libertarians, but what about when it comes to the more straightforward libertarian positions on free speech, guns, and private property? Is trampling on individual rights more legitimate when a state or city government does it?
Why would it be acceptable at the local but not the federal level to relinquish our liberties to the tyranny of the majority?
Also, the kind of national divorce between red and blue America that partisans like Greene are calling for doesn't accurately capture the rich political diversity of a country designed from the founding to contain multitudes.
When I tweeted that talk of a "national divorce" implies "there are only two sides, that you must choose one," and that the discussion is mostly about "tribal rage," I got a lot of pushback, including in the form of this map, showing America divided into its thousands of counties, suggesting that we can Balkanize into a limitless number of political tribes.
"I love how [discussing a national divorce] gets people thinking about something that seems almost off limits," says comedian, podcast host, and possible L.P. presidential candidate Dave Smith. I talked with Smith about the possibility of a national divorce after we exchanged words on Twitter about it. You can see a fuller discussion between us in the video above. He says the topic is a political litmus test.
"I think the question becomes how bad do you really think this current situation is?" says Smith. "Is it an inconvenience? Or is this something that is really dangerous? And I think the situation of us being a union right now is very dangerous."
The increasing centralization of political power in America is indeed concerning and dangerous. But is rooting for the breakup of the U.S. at this moment in time really all that libertarian?
This question reminds me of the litmus test posited by the anarcho-capitalist economist Murray Rothbard, whose work has had a major influence on Smith and the current L.P. leadership: What if a button existed that would immediately abolish all government? A radical libertarian, Rothbard writes, would "blister his thumb pushing" it, while so-called gradualists—including fellow anarcho-capitalist theorist David Friedman, whose work Rothbard was critiquing in the essay, and many of us at Reason magazine—would hold back as we fretted over the unintended consequences.
Smith, who says he's a fan of the work of both Rothbard and Friedman, says he'd blister his thumb pushing the hypothetical button.
"I think why so many people are at the point of entertaining this idea of a national divorce is that the Constitution has already been disregarded," says Smith. "Give me an amendment to the Bill of Rights, and I'll tell you how the federal government has wildly violated it in every possible way you could imagine."
He's right that words written down on an old piece of paper aren't enough to protect our rights if politicians disregard them. But they do matter.
As Austrian Nobel Prize winner F.A. Hayek wrote, "the only safeguard" against creeping tyranny is "a clear awareness of the dangers" by the public. Having a written constitution that venerates individual rights makes "them part of a political creed which the people will defend even when they do not fully understand its significance."
Defending and improving institutions that emerged to meet precisely the challenge of safeguarding liberty—such as the courts, the media, think tanks, and advocacy organizations—was a major theme in Hayek's work.
"What we must learn to understand is that human civilization has a life of its own," he wrote, and that we must cautiously and humbly "aim at piecemeal, rather than total" reform to avoid the kinds of bloody and barbaric upheaval that ideologues of the 20th century inflicted on much of the world.
Does this cautious approach mean every government institution must be preserved? Of course not. What Hayek criticized in particular, and what libertarians should aim to abolish as quickly as possible, is the monopolization of services by the state.
"A free society demands not only that the government have the monopoly of coercion but that it have the monopoly only of coercion," Hayek wrote in The Constitution of Liberty. "In all other respects it [should] operate on the same terms as everybody else."
I'd like to see a libertarian president immediately shut down monopolistic federal agencies, end America's foreign military occupations, and for the Supreme Court to declare the modern administrative state unconstitutional.
Libertarians are and should be engaging in political struggle and pressuring courts however they can to protect Americans' liberties against all levels of government: federal, state, and local.
And the most effective method for increasing freedom is the use of technological tools that allow us to bypass the state altogether and extend the scope of the Bill of Rights: Print your own guns, communicate through encrypted services, build new worlds in cyberspace, and hold and transact in bitcoin, which the government can't censor or devalue.
In a reply to Rothbard, Friedman stressed the value of humility in politics, writing that "my arguments and [Rothbard's] could be wrong; some sort of government might be the least bad alternative among workable human institutions." Rothbard, on the other hand, was "certain he was right and viewed disagreement as war."
That's why I'm not a button-pusher like Rothbard or Smith: I need to know what comes after the collapse of the state. And we simply cannot know. Always proceed with caution in the face of uncertainty.
A dramatic national divorce—and the ensuing "total" reform that Hayek warned about—could lead to a more libertarian world, or it could lead to chaos and destroy the hard-won liberties that emerged from centuries of unplanned human effort.
It's a gamble. How lucky do you feel?
The Constitution isn't a holy text. It's not an all-powerful shield against government tyranny. But it is, as Frederick Douglass once put it "a glorious liberty document." For libertarians, it can be a weapon—quite a powerful one—in the arsenal needed to defend our liberties and decentralize power. Instead of tossing it aside, maybe the task is figuring out how better to wield it.
Watch my conversation with Smith in the video above.
Dave Smith and Reason's Zach Weissmueller discuss the libertarian case for and against breaking up the United States.
https://rumble.com/v1dlc3s-a-national-divorce.html
Should Libertarians Root for a National Divorce?
Dave Smith discusses the libertarian case for and against breaking up the United States.
https://reason.com/video/2022/07/25/should-libertarians-root-for-a-national-divorce/
Zach Weissmueller (25 July 2022)
Is it time for blue states and red states to stop fighting over their differences and just get a divorce?
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R–Ga.), along with many on the political right, says it's time to seriously consider breaking the country apart.
The Libertarian Party (L.P.) has also been promoting this idea on Twitter since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
"Pro-lifers, why share a country with those who support the dismemberment of babies in the womb?," the L.P. tweeted in June. "Pro-choicers, why share a country with those who would take a woman's right to abort away? #NationalDivorce."
The politics of abortion are thorny and contentious even among libertarians, but what about when it comes to the more straightforward libertarian positions on free speech, guns, and private property? Is trampling on individual rights more legitimate when a state or city government does it?
Why would it be acceptable at the local but not the federal level to relinquish our liberties to the tyranny of the majority?
Also, the kind of national divorce between red and blue America that partisans like Greene are calling for doesn't accurately capture the rich political diversity of a country designed from the founding to contain multitudes.
When I tweeted that talk of a "national divorce" implies "there are only two sides, that you must choose one," and that the discussion is mostly about "tribal rage," I got a lot of pushback, including in the form of this map, showing America divided into its thousands of counties, suggesting that we can Balkanize into a limitless number of political tribes.
"I love how [discussing a national divorce] gets people thinking about something that seems almost off limits," says comedian, podcast host, and possible L.P. presidential candidate Dave Smith. I talked with Smith about the possibility of a national divorce after we exchanged words on Twitter about it. You can see a fuller discussion between us in the video above. He says the topic is a political litmus test.
"I think the question becomes how bad do you really think this current situation is?" says Smith. "Is it an inconvenience? Or is this something that is really dangerous? And I think the situation of us being a union right now is very dangerous."
The increasing centralization of political power in America is indeed concerning and dangerous. But is rooting for the breakup of the U.S. at this moment in time really all that libertarian?
This question reminds me of the litmus test posited by the anarcho-capitalist economist Murray Rothbard, whose work has had a major influence on Smith and the current L.P. leadership: What if a button existed that would immediately abolish all government? A radical libertarian, Rothbard writes, would "blister his thumb pushing" it, while so-called gradualists—including fellow anarcho-capitalist theorist David Friedman, whose work Rothbard was critiquing in the essay, and many of us at Reason magazine—would hold back as we fretted over the unintended consequences.
Smith, who says he's a fan of the work of both Rothbard and Friedman, says he'd blister his thumb pushing the hypothetical button.
"I think why so many people are at the point of entertaining this idea of a national divorce is that the Constitution has already been disregarded," says Smith. "Give me an amendment to the Bill of Rights, and I'll tell you how the federal government has wildly violated it in every possible way you could imagine."
He's right that words written down on an old piece of paper aren't enough to protect our rights if politicians disregard them. But they do matter.
As Austrian Nobel Prize winner F.A. Hayek wrote, "the only safeguard" against creeping tyranny is "a clear awareness of the dangers" by the public. Having a written constitution that venerates individual rights makes "them part of a political creed which the people will defend even when they do not fully understand its significance."
Defending and improving institutions that emerged to meet precisely the challenge of safeguarding liberty—such as the courts, the media, think tanks, and advocacy organizations—was a major theme in Hayek's work.
"What we must learn to understand is that human civilization has a life of its own," he wrote, and that we must cautiously and humbly "aim at piecemeal, rather than total" reform to avoid the kinds of bloody and barbaric upheaval that ideologues of the 20th century inflicted on much of the world.
Does this cautious approach mean every government institution must be preserved? Of course not. What Hayek criticized in particular, and what libertarians should aim to abolish as quickly as possible, is the monopolization of services by the state.
"A free society demands not only that the government have the monopoly of coercion but that it have the monopoly only of coercion," Hayek wrote in The Constitution of Liberty. "In all other respects it [should] operate on the same terms as everybody else."
I'd like to see a libertarian president immediately shut down monopolistic federal agencies, end America's foreign military occupations, and for the Supreme Court to declare the modern administrative state unconstitutional.
Libertarians are and should be engaging in political struggle and pressuring courts however they can to protect Americans' liberties against all levels of government: federal, state, and local.
And the most effective method for increasing freedom is the use of technological tools that allow us to bypass the state altogether and extend the scope of the Bill of Rights: Print your own guns, communicate through encrypted services, build new worlds in cyberspace, and hold and transact in bitcoin, which the government can't censor or devalue.
In a reply to Rothbard, Friedman stressed the value of humility in politics, writing that "my arguments and [Rothbard's] could be wrong; some sort of government might be the least bad alternative among workable human institutions." Rothbard, on the other hand, was "certain he was right and viewed disagreement as war."
That's why I'm not a button-pusher like Rothbard or Smith: I need to know what comes after the collapse of the state. And we simply cannot know. Always proceed with caution in the face of uncertainty.
A dramatic national divorce—and the ensuing "total" reform that Hayek warned about—could lead to a more libertarian world, or it could lead to chaos and destroy the hard-won liberties that emerged from centuries of unplanned human effort.
It's a gamble. How lucky do you feel?
The Constitution isn't a holy text. It's not an all-powerful shield against government tyranny. But it is, as Frederick Douglass once put it "a glorious liberty document." For libertarians, it can be a weapon—quite a powerful one—in the arsenal needed to defend our liberties and decentralize power. Instead of tossing it aside, maybe the task is figuring out how better to wield it.
Watch my conversation with Smith in the video above.
CaptUSA
Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 18,938
When the plane is in a nosedive, you'll always have some trying to pull back on the yolk and others grabbing the parachutes.
acptulsa
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 75,585
Where are the nuclear solos? They ain't in Manhattan.
acptulsa
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 75,585
As for the new Amish, huh? I'm pretty sure the old Amish are gestating the new Amish. Are you saying you don't think Flyover Country can build cars, can openers, fingernail clippers? What do we do with Washington's input that we can't do a damned sight better without it?
Last edited:
donnay
Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 42,534
I do not think for one minute that people in America can basically go off this grid and do better than what they left. However, I am not sure if people are realizing that we are dealing with very evil people. They are not going to let people live freely without a fight.
acptulsa
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 75,585
Rest assured that you aren't the only person in the country who has had that thought cross their mind. Why do you think that, even as they were trying to start WWIII they were trying to purge the military of the non-woke and vax-resistant?
That said, I'll ask you again. Where are the silos? Are they all on the national mall?
donnay
Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 42,534
I guess I am not following what you are asking. I am saying these evil people want a civil war. If a quarter of the country chose to secede, it will give them exactly what they want. Have we learned nothing from history?
acptulsa
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 75,585
Do they?
History hasn't really taught us how to handle a situation where one side of a civil war has ostensible control of enough weapons of mass destruction to end life in Earth, but the majority of them are in the territory of the other side, manned by troops who are part of those local communities.
Similar threads
